Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal

Beheading or murder?

It is unclear that it was a beheading, so as highlighted by Venkat TL here, I think we should stick to calling it murder. WP:RS have called it beheading Webberbrad007 (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The post mortem of Kanhaiya Lal revealed that he died due to excessive loss of blood. He was attacked 26 times with a sharp weapon, and stabbed eight to 10 times in the neck.

References

@Webberbrad007 it is based on the initial reports. When we have confirmed post mortem report. Then the PM should be given more weight. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the Tehelka article states that it wasn't a beheading? A beheading is a murder and can be referred to as such by some authors. However, beheading is a more specific type of murder and providing that specific detail, as has been done in such cases elsewhere, is apt if it is backed by WP:RS. The post mortem itself is a technical report which will refer to the cause of death (which won't be loss of head in the case of a beheading). Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

None of the news articles based on the Post Mortem (PM) report call it a beheading, your continual lack of recognition of the more reliable report is strange. Why would you still go with the initial reports that was noted as conflicting by NDTV.? They might have attempted a lot of things but the reports call it stabs in the neck and that is what they ended up inflicting. Wikipedia should not be overstretching and exaggerating when there are clear reports. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you seen a post mortem report of a beheading victim? Post mortem is a technical report and will include the cause of death. Beheading will require the neck to have knife / stab wounds. Having these mentioned in the post mortem report doesn't preclude beheading. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I updated my comment, I meant News articles based on the Post Mortem report. Look, if the beheading was done, the report would have noted it. It is not possible to skip such a major information in the PM report. Unless we have conflicting report on PM, there is nothing to discuss here. Venkat TL (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Post mortem report states the medical cause of death. What would you suggest as the medical cause of death for a beheading? How would you determine that it was not a beheading from that? Check Samuel Paty. The citations stating that it was a beheading do not refer to a post mortem to state that. Webberbrad007 (talk) 12:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We do not do this kind of WP:SYNTHESIS. Please read the link. We only post what reliable sources are saying. FWIW, I have seen the pics of the body and there was no beheading. Venkat TL (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble:Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

When did a post-mortem report become a requirement? WP:RS calls it a beheading and that's what it is. Stop making rules to stonewall. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The source doesn't establish anything because no beheading is described. It is probably an outdated wording in the title, but the article doesn't use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

yes, and here is a source from today, clarifying that they could not behead. Venkat TL (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata you have been reminded to not edit war and bring those sources on the talk page and get consensus to add this content here. The WP:ONUS to do this is on the person adding content. Venkat TL (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Started a new thread. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Udaipur "beheading" and it's use by reliable sources

Kanhaiya Lal was beheaded as per multiple reliable sources. I know some will try to say these were only "initial" reports. Here are multiple reliable sources published after 30 June (2 days after the attack) after that call it a beheading.

We should call it a beheading because a beheading was what is was if you have watched the video. The attackers also gloat about the beheading in their video. Any attempt to say otherwise is WP:FRINGE. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

NebulaOblongata, Dont create duplicate threads, I have merged it. here is the pic. See for yourself. This pic is inline with the news articles covering the post mortem report. The initial reports seem to be inaccurate. --Venkat TL (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Damn. Then let's add this - it was an attempted beheading but the assailants were rookies. NebulaOblongata (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@NebulaOblongata yes This NDTV article I shared in my previous comment, quotes the cop. We dont have source that calls them rookies, so your suggestion cannot be added. Please suggest in your reply, a suitable summary of that line from the linked article and we can discuss how to include it. We cannot say in wikipedia voice what you had written. Since this is a quote from the police, it is attributed and better placed in the aftermath section. I have proposed "The police said that the perpetrators had attempted to behead Kanhaiya during the attack but had failed." Feel free to make suggestions for rephrasing this if you feel the need. Please note that the Trusted reliable source New York Times does not mention beheading in its article. Venkat TL (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.punekarnews.in/udaipur-kanhaiya-lals-post-mortem-report-reveals-26-attacks-and-13-cuts/

This is clearly a case of beheading, since they did not succeed it must be described as attempted beheading. FofS&E (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hinduphobia?

Why is there Hinduphobia in the infobox? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be there? He was beheaded because either he or one of his children posted on social media in support of Nupur Sharma. After an FIR, he had got a bail after an apology from his side. Murdering him before waiting for legal court case proceedings against him for merely supporting Nupur Sharma, a Hindu, recieving death & rape threats for stating facts mentioned in Islamic texts is Hinduphobia or Hindumisia. FofS&E (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@FofS&E It would have been a good idea to look at the article first, as it is not in the infobox and shouldn't be without multiple reliable sources backing the label. Editors' opinions don't count. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug. Okay thanks,. FofS&E (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2022 (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:

• Mohammed Riyaz Akhtar and Mohammed Gosh.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Refs

• https://www.ndtv.com/blog/the-udaipur-killing-is-a-tragic-and-watershed-moment-for-india-3117827

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Names of accused

One of the accused individuals is referred to as both Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Mohammed Riyaz Akhtar in the article. Likewise with the other individual, described as Mohammed Gosh, Mohammed Ghous and Ghouse Mohammad throughout the page.

Looking through the names used by media articles, there seems to be a number of different spellings. Is there a standard form of spelling for these kinds of titles we can use? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dunutubble I am not sure about Akhtar vs Attari, may be one of it is middle name. Apart from this all other are acceptable transliterations of a Hindustani language name. One of it may be the official one, and if we are certain about one, we can use it. In the absence of confirmation of an official spelling, the most common spelling should be used. Indian Express and The Hindu generally use the most common spellings so we should probably look at what spellings they are using. The article now uses the spelling Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Mohammed Ghouse. If a different spelling is to be used, it should be discussed here and changed throughout the article. Venkat TL (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Terror charges

@DockMajestic the infobox already says terror charges, even though a NIA chargesheet has not yet been filed. what we have are accusations of terror. It is too early to conclusively call this Terrorism. The investigation report should say that before it can be added. Venkat TL (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I changed it before seeing this section, but I agree that the field should probably be removed. Hemantha (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Infobox field Attack type

What proposed change to infobox would look like

Current infobox	Proposed change
Murder of Kanhaiya Lal Location Udaipur, Rajasthan, India Date 28 June 2022 (2022-06-28) Attack type Murder Weapon Cleaver Deaths 1 Injured 1 Victim Kanhaiya Lal No. of participants 2 Accused Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Mohammed Ghouse Charges Charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act	Murder of Kanhaiya Lal Location Udaipur, Rajasthan, India Date 28 June 2022 (2022-06-28) Attack type Attempted decapitation, Islamic terrorism Weapon Cleaver Deaths 1 Injured 1 Victim Kanhaiya Lal No. of participants 2 Accused Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Mohammed Ghouse Charges Charged under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

References

Infobox field Attack type currently mentions Murder.

@NebulaOblongata is edit warring to change it to "Murder by attempted beheading"

I believe this needs discussion and consensus. Since the beheading did not occur, it would not be appropriate to mention it in infobox. The word Murder accurately covers the type. Venkat TL (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL I don't see what is the issue with the threat statement they made against Modi. It is well sourced and is relevant to this murder.

In addition, why is attempted beheading not lede material? See infobox for Lee Rigby. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 Because as of now it is just a quote from a cop, and not an established fact of the matter. Now I have added it with attribution in the aftermath section. But this needs to be established before it can be added into lead. Please note that the Trusted reliable source New York Times does not mention beheading in its article. --Venkat TL (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

We are not debating beheading here - that is the section above, so I don't see the relevance of the NYT article here. NebulaOblongata added a sourced comment about this being an attempted beheading where the perpetrators fled the scene before they could fully decapitate the victim. We have example templates for such crimes in Lee Rigby and Samuel Paty which should be used as reference instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.

Secondly, I fail to see the objection to the quotebox with the threat issued by the perpetrators to Modi which appears well sourced too.

Thirdly, if we have a statement by Maulana Mahmood Madani of JUeH, I don't see why statements from relevant senior political leaders not relevant? Webberbrad007 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

::::You've made this type of argument on multiple talks, and once again I repeat - the existence of a source is not an argument for inclusion.
On the quote about Modi, it is entirely irrelevant to the subject of the article, which to remind is "Murder of Lal". On Raje quote, once again, it is very clear that the murder is only tangential to the political point she is making; if you find a quote by her which is directly about and is limited to the topic, feel free to add it (keeping in mind WP:GOSSIP etc). Hemantha (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

I think its clear that it's not simply murder it's beheading because the itself showing that they two beheaded not murdererd and NYT is not relevant here because it's not Indian Newspaper Het666 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume you refer to this when you say multiple talks. For context, that was to add the bit about the support Nupur Sharma (politician) received for having received death threats, which sadly has been reiterated by those carrying out this murder. I am unsure how we can still claim that the death threats she received for her comments are not relevant even though well sourced.

Anyway, coming to this topic. I believe you missed the example I provided - Lee Rigby. The crime was similar and the cause is mentioned as Attempted Decapitation, Islamic Terrorism. The two perpetrators were caught on camera and carried out the murder in broad day light claiming religious justification. We can't follow different templates for similar situations when the victim is in a different country, of different faith or skin colour.

Regarding the quote about threat to Modi, I again draw your attention to Lee Rigby. The comments and threats made by the murderers on video and as reported by WP:RS have been carried as quotes, including the reference to the then British Prime Minister David Cameron. So I believe the determination of what is relevant has already been made by past editors and we should stick to it. If we want to deviate, we should create WP:CONSENSUS for it. A fresh consensus is not required for following precedence. Webberbrad007 (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 Stop using WP:OSE. Lee Rigby is a 2013 case, all the facts of that incident are clear BECAUSE it is 2013 incident, and the investigation and convictions are over. None of that is true for this case where the investigation has only begun. Please read WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIME which prevents lot of BLP related and unconfirmed information from being added here, that you are proposing to add. If you want to discuss the quote, Please start another thread. Venkat TL (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL Please refer Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Precedent in usage under which my argument falls. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply because my argument wasn't to assign the crime to the two accused. I don't see what part of WP:CRIME you believe is applicable to the argument here. Please clarify. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 yes all parts of BLP Crime WP:SUSPECT and Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal_acts applies, because the infobox explicitly names the suspect and the charges that you are trying to add. So far the only thing that we all can conclusively claim has happened is Murder, rest everything is speculation as of now until a court of law establishes them in its verdict. The phrase you are proposing falls under the category of media speculation, police speculation. They cannot be added. Venkat TL (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL The infobox clearly states that they are accused and not convicted. The description is of the crime itself and if WP:RS give more specific details, then they can be included. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

::::::::(ec) The whole article fails BLPCRIME. It there wasn't a video, this would already have been at AfD. But specifically, speculating about mode of attack using WP:NOTNEWS sources like you propose to do, fails BLPCRIME. Hemantha (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Of course, if there wasn't video evidence, it wouldn't have gotten all the wide coverage it is getting. If a tree falls in a forest. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 when you proposed to add "Attempted Decapitation, Islamic Terrorism" you failed to give refs for both. Please provide refs that establish they have been charged for Attempted Decapitation and charged for Islamic Terrorism. I dont think these sources exist yet. No chargesheet has been filed. Venkat TL (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL I was giving an example template to follow for a similar crime in support of @NebulaOblongata's changes where they had sourced an article stating that this was an attempted beheading.

Regarding charges, there are no separate charges for murder by attempted decapitation or Islamic Terrorism in India just as in the UK. The charges are for murder and terrorism. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If there are no official and credible refs for the said charges, then they should not be added on the basis of media speculation.--Venkat TL (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A statement from law enforcement (Police) reported by NDTV should be RS. Webberbrad007 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Webberbrad007 Unverified controversial allegations about the person stands foul of WP:SUSPECT and Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Criminal_acts. While news sites like India today can print it, Wikipedia is not a news site WP:NOTNEWS. Hence difference. Venkat TL (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You asked for RS which seems to be available. The attempted decapitation is not speculation on behalf of either NDTV or the editors here. In addition, it is WP:DUE as has been demonstrated in a similar article for Lee Rigby. Webberbrad007 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Webberbrad007, law enforcement officers in Indian due to political pressure, give all kind of statements that they are unable to hold in the court of law. They cannot be blindly used as a reliable source. Venkat TL (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.punekarnews.in/udaipur-kanhaiya-lals-post-mortem-report-reveals-26-attacks-and-13-cuts/

The proposed change to infobox seems to be appropriate. Both murderers were motivated & inspired by their religion & hateful slogans such as "Gustakh e rasul ki ek hi saja, Sar Tan se Juda - Sar Tan se Juda." Literal translation:- The only punishment for blasphemy against prophet is decapitation/severing of head from body. There is example of similar incidents in India as well as various other countries where the attack is described as Islamic or Islamist terrorism.

FofS&E (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Terror links with this murder

Is their any terrod link with this murder ?? What media is showing on it ?? Het666 (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There has been no definite conclusion yet Kpddg ^(talk) 07:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg is right. So far there is only media speculations and police speculations so far. No evidence of terror has been found yet. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Sources from NYT or BBC should not be used because they don't reflect proper case . Indian news blogs should be used like ABP News, Aaj Tak,News 18, NDTV etc like Het666 (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You will need to establish consensus for this, since according to Wikipedia, NYT and BBC are considered reliable. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Speculations of Rahul Kanwal

See: Special:Diff/1096311648/1096314102

This discussion is about the Perpetrators section of this page as well as 2022_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Udaipur.

I know what Rahul Kanwal has speculated and reliable sources have noted that no evidence has been forwarded to support the theory of infiltration. These speculations fail WP:BLP and may change at a later time after court screening. We should not add it. Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There are some refs (Hindustan Times, India Today, Aaj Tak). It is not Rahul Kanwal speculating, it is being said by the sources. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg Aaj Tak is part of India today group, same company. HT is different agree, but HT Notes "During interrogation, accused Riyaz Atri has not uttered a word about his trying to enter BJP or target the saffron party leaders." So I would take this speculation from "unknown sources" with a large teaspoon of salt. We should wait if this holds up in court, it is likely misinformation introduced to deflect political damage. Venkat TL (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Another HT report says The ongoing investigations .... are indicative that Riyaz Attari, was trying to get close to BJP leaders and workers such as those affiliated to Muslim Rashtriya Manch, including Irshad Chainwala, a member of BJP Minority Morcha and Tahir Raza Khan, a BJP worker with a view to target them. It has also been revealed that he had carried out recce of BJP establishments and functionaries of the party for this purpose. Also: During the interrogation, the accused revealed that they were self-radicalised and followers of Karachi-based Dawat-e-Islami leader Illyas Attar Qadri. If the murderer has not said anything about this matter, it cannot be estalished that the information obtained is innaccurate. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

When did India Today become a bad source? When was this established? Can you point me to a consensus on this? NebulaOblongata (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no consensus to classify India Today as unreliable. I can find only two discussions (1, 2), both of them not having any conclusion. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

And then, one one hand the murderer is said to be a 'dedicated BJP worker', while on the other he kills a man for backing a BJP spokesperson and threatens the PM! Kpddg ^(talk) 15:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple reports from RS there, and after discarding venkat's personal opinion about India Today, there seems to be no grounds to remove this information. It is completely due. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I DON'T LIKE WHAT INDIA TODAY IS REPORTING! IT'S OBVIOUSLY UNRELIABLE! REMOVE IT! SHUT IT DOWN! - Most unbiased Wikipedian. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You have already been warned about WP:AGF. Next will be a report for this. Venkat TL (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories of Rohit Kanwal cannot be added into the wikipedia article about a living person. Please dont edit war over this, see Dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

You can't dismiss reliably sourced content as "conspiracy theories" unless you have reliable sources that describe them as such. So far no reason has been given by you to remove this sourced content. If you are going to selectively modify content like this and treat allegations as facts then you are only causing problems. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

::It's being repeated left and right that India Today is a reliable source. Where has this been established? Hemantha (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

Where has it been established that it is not one? Not just India Today, but Hindustan Times also says the same, as noted in my previous comment. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Note: DR thread regarding this here Kpddg ^(talk) 13:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Kpddg, the only non involved participant of the BLPN suggested an RfC so I will start one below. Venkat TL (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Aman.kumar.goel: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. (see WP:ONUS), Stop edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• The requirements needed under onus have been clearly satisfied. Here WP:CON is entirely against you, thus you have to abide by it instead of edit warring. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Threats to PM Modi

Why can't these clear threats be mentioned in the lead, and why can't they have a quotebox? No guideline is against it, and above discussions are unclear. This is relevant to the article and can be sufficiently sourced. It is not just something which 'exists' in a source, but has direct relevance. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Reference to these threats should be included in the lead while the quotes should be part of the body. Refer Lee Rigby, which is a very similar case. Webberbrad007 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Support There is no valid reason to remove them apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg When you start a thread to add something, you are expected to explicitly mention what exactly your are proposing to add. Where is your line that you want to add? which quote? If you are referring to the quote box with quote from the video. I am opposed to adding the quote box and even the quote, you can summarize what he said, but his comments are not worth quoting line by line or highlighting with a quotebox. Venkat TL (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Add The assailants also threatened Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the video. to the lead section. And later in the article: In what seems to be a second video (taken after the attack), they boasted about the murder to avenge the insult to islam and also issued threatened India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi that their 'knife would reach him as well'. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg you forgot to add the source to verify these lines. Venkat TL (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL, The source for exact quote is this. It requires a subscription. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The exact thing as mentioned in NYTimes is “Listen, Narendra Modi, you have lit the fire, but we will douse it,” he said, as the men brandished their daggers. “I pray to god that this dagger will reach your neck one day, too.”. Kpddg ^(talk) 13:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg, thank you, I have access to this article. While this quote is mentioned, the article does not support the line you are proposing. Based on the NYT article, we can add later in the article, (not in lead) that "In the video released by the perpetrators, they threatened India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi with murder."Venkat TL (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL, okay, we can add the sentence you are proposing, no need of the exact quote. But why shouldn't it be added in the lead? Kpddg ^(talk) 13:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg thanks for agreeing. I believe this is a publicity stunt by the perpetrators. While it should be covered in the body, I believe it is not fit for the lead. The lead needs to be expanded to summarize other sections too. After that we can revisit if the Modi threat should be added in the lead. I dont have strong oppose on this. Venkat TL (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Support: I think at least a mention in the lede is warranted to underscore the political nature of the incident. Tow (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Kpddg: I also support a mention by highlighting with a quotebox. Can you start a protected edit request with a new subsection and cite the consensus here? Thanks Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

@Kpddg, The exact lines you proposed may not be adequately supported. However, from the source, we can add The assailants later recorded another video, where one issued a warning, saying “Listen, Narendra Modi, you have lit the fire, but we will douse it. I pray to god that this dagger will reach your neck one day, too”, while the two men brandished daggers. Or, this could be included in a quotebox. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Oppose proposal by CapnJackSp Why are you stressing on the Quote box and Quotes statement? what encyclopedic purpose does it serve? Venkat TL (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

See discussion above. If it had no "encyclopedic purpose" then it won't exist in the first place, let alone its wide usage all over Wikipedia articles. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp, let me rephrase my question, "what encyclopedic purpose does it serve here on this article? The purpose that cannot be served by the summary of his quote? Venkat TL (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Reaction Inclusion

I'm creating a separate section for each issue to facillitate clear discusion. There are reactions of some organisations, but not of prominent opposition members and other such people. See this diff. Stones were pelted, silent protest was staged, etc. has been removed. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

To add, the reactions of Geert Wilders and Vasundhara Raje, ex-CM and current opposition leader are valid. They are adequately covered in RS. I guess some editors want their opinions removed because these politicians purportedly belong to the wrong end of the political spectrum. NebulaOblongata (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg When you start a thread to add something, you are expected to explicitly mention what exactly your are proposing to add. Where is your line that you want to add? which reaction? @NebulaOblongata, what did wilders say, and why are you proposing to add it here? Hundreds of people said thousands of things, this page is not a collection of he said she said. See WP:NOTNEWS Venkat TL (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

See also section

If we are going to have a "see also" section, it needs to be clear why articles are linked to. See MOS:SEEALSO, which says Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent. The reason for including the links to Kamlesh Tiwari, the Murder of Samuel Paty and the Murder of Lee Rigby is because of how and why they were murdered. This needs to be clear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for making the See Also wording clear. Webberbrad007 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Well stated. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2022

@El C: Kindly revert this misleading revert by Venkat TL per consensus on this section as well as this BLPN thread. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm unlikely to pick a side in this content dispute. El_C 03:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I don't think it would seem that you are taking side when you would be implementing a policy based edit opposed by only 1 editor against consensus on at least 2 venues. It is completely uncontroversial for you to make the revert. If you still disagree then you can modify protection to ECP. We can't omit the important information under false garb of WP:BLP. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Both sides are claiming BLP vios against the other. I fully protected one page on one side's version and another on the other's (which happened randomly in the order I encountered these at RfPP). I don't see how ECP would help, you're all extended-confirmed, so you're all likely to just continue edit warring, on either page. So, either you're able to reach consensus, on either page, or reach some sort of resolution at BLPN. I can't really offer you more than that right now, sorry. El_C 04:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C This would just leave this page unchanged, which would effectively freeze it per one editor's views against consensus as pointed out by CapnJackSp. In addition, there are daily updates on this topic which if not included, would make the article inaccurate. Surely there should be a way out of this impasse if one editor refuses to agree on consensus?

There is precedence of how WP:BLP is applied (or not) in such cases. Refer the early days of the articles on Murder of Samuel Paty or Murder of Lee Rigby. These would be prior to the respective courts pronouncing verdicts. My 2 cents. Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@El C: That never happened. Only 1 user (Venkat TL) is making "BLP" claims (though false) against the consensus on two venues.[1][[2] Venkat TL first removed the reliably sourced content by falsely claiming India Today to be unreliable[3] and when that failed he focused only on his claim of BLP violation and brought to BLPN where not a single person has agreed with content removal by Venkat TL but everyone disagreed with his claim. "Consensus" unanimously exists on both the talk page and BLPN against this content removal. Multiple editors have supported this (five at the time of writing, including uninvolved editors).

I have thoroughly clarified this for another time, so can you revert this revert now? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

No. I closed this edit request already, but since you choose to re-open it (which is poor form), you can now have another admin assist you with it. Also, I'm seeing two, not one (not sure why both of you repeat that falsehood), for the one version and three for the other, but this is not a game of numbers. I'm also not sure why you think you can flip wrong version in your favour with an edit request. That's also poor form tbh. But by all means, if you can convince another admin to revert to your version, through an edit request or by any other means, that's fine with me (ditto for the other page, by the other side). I choose to end my role here with stopping the edit warring on the two pages in question. The seeming expectation that I respond to comments while mine remain un-addressed — I don't like that. Anyway, bowing out. See ya. El_C 09:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I am reformatting this request for others to understand more easily as follow.

3rd paragraph on Murder of Kanhaiya Lal#Perpetrators is:-

On 1 July 2022, pictures of Mohammad Riyaz Attari emerged which showed him attending BJP events. In a 2020 post on facebook, Attari was described by a local Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader as a "dedicated worker of the BJP".

Change it back to:

On 1 July 2022, it was reported that Attari may have been planning to infiltrate the BJP through its loyalists, after photos of Attari attending BJP functions surfaced. In a 2020 post on Facebook, Attari had been described by a local Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader as a "dedicated worker of the BJP".

It was unilaterally modified here but the consensus is against it per section above,[4] and also WP:BLPN thread.[5] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC) :I do not know why you repeat so stridently that there is consensus. There is absolutely not. Your version has severe NPOV problems as well as BLP issues. Consensus is generated by discussing, not by repeatedly reopening edit requests. Hemantha (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

 Not done The comments by User:El_C are correct. I do not see a blatant BLP violation, so will wait for consensus to emerge from other editors. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• @El C and MSGJ: Hemantha has been blocked for sockpuppetry and there has been no other opposition to my above request by any other editors in last 24 hours. I hope you are willing to change your mind now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  CapnJackSp is pretending that I dont exist when he says no opposition. I have already explained this in #Speculations of Rahul Kanwal section. Where there is no consensus to add this. Venkat TL (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Obviously you are opposed to this edit request with your false claims of BLP. Where did I ignore your insignificant opposition? I am always clear that the consensus is clearly against your false claims of BLP violation as also visible on the BLPN thread but your inability to accept consensus is clearly telling. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that "Your opinion is not consensus." Venkat TL (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to understand that you are a WP:1AM and there is a clear consensus against your spurious claims of BLP vio. Dympies (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The opinion of one person against the policy based arguments of many is not valid opposition. Consensus is not unanimity, as you have been told before.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. Venkat TL (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Your argument that "until I am convinced = consensus" is nonsensical, however. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

CapnJackSp then so is your pretension that I dont exist. Venkat TL (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 4 July 2022 (2)

Add the following to "Perpetrators" section:

During interrogations, the assailants described themselves as "self-radicalized" and followers of Dawat-e-Islami; both of them had affixed "Attari" to their names to indicate their affiliation to Dawat-e-Islami and its leader Muhammad Ilyas Attar Qadri. 49.37.247.133 (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

References

: Not done: per WP:SUSPECT. Hemantha (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

I don't understand how WP:SUSPECT is applicable to this edit. This edit makes no assertion that they committed any crime. It simply contains background information on the assailants based on their own confession, similar to Charlie Hebdo shooting. 49.37.247.133 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

:::Um, the police claim they have said so. Unless some court upholds it, it is just an allegation and hence WP:SUSPECT is applicable. Note that edit requests are to be used only after consensus has been formed. Please don't unnecessarily reopen it. Hemantha (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock

The court has to "uphold" the assailants' self-confessed background information before we can add it to the article? That makes no sense. Why would a fact uncovered by the investigating police and covered by multiple reliable sources be unreliable? But a Facebook post of them allegedly attending some event is somehow reliable without the law or judiciary vetting the photo's authenticity? Interesting. I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator reviews this request. Thanks. 49.37.247.133 (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Request re-activated as it was declined by a sock. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@MSGJ: This request also remains unopposed (not counting the sock). It should be added as 3rd paragraph on Murder of Kanhaiya Lal#Perpetrators. Can you complete it? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Opppose this controversial edit based on unreliable source stands foul of WP:BLP. This should not be added. Venkat TL (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop marking requests as "yes" when you don't have the ability to implement them. Indian Express is a reliable source. You are simply WP:STONEWALLING at this stage with rampant false claims of BLP. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp you need to read the page WP:ER once again. It does not say that only an admin can answer an edit request. An Admin is not a SUPER USER. If you are in doubt, ask for help, dont edit war.--Venkat TL (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think before pointing others to a policy, it is good practice to read it yourself. Only those still capable to edit through protection have the right to accept or decline the request. Per WP:EDITXY: "Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator."

You can't edit through full protection so you need to stop handling such requests yourself. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Indian Express is a very reliable source. I can confidently say that Venkat TL's claims are just as spurious here as much as his claims about BLP vio. Dympies (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp Very interesting that you left out the most important line of the quoted policy, let me post it for your attention "Administrators can respond only to requests that are either uncontroversial improvements (correcting typos, grammar, or reference formatting; improving the reliability or efficiency of template code) or are already supported by a consensus of editors, usually on the protected page's talk page." This contentious request is against consensus. If you want an admin to decline this for you be my guest. Venkat TL (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see 3 editors in favor of the implementation of this edit, and only 1 editor (which is you) who is opposed to it and hasn't provided any sensible argument. I would call it consensus to implement the requested edit. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. And WP:BLPCRIME is enough policy for sensible editors. News reports based on interrogation cannot be used on Wikipedia, unless vetted by a court. Venkat TL (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

As I have pointed out above, WP:SUSPECT/WP:BLPCRIME is irrelevant to my suggested edit. Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Read Assassination of Shinzo Abe which covers the suspect's background facts uncovered during investigations and confessions made during interrogations. That article is on the main page BTW. 49.37.247.133 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• BLPCRIME keeps getting thrown around for all the wrong reasons. The naming of the accused as perpetrators is far more likely a BLPCRIME violation than any of the statements.

Also involved editors should not be answering an edit request, especially on on a fully protected page that was protected because of edit-warring. That's called common sense. Now I would suggest all editors stop using edit requests and get consensus outside the edit requests before harassing admins with them and arguing within the request thread. Slywriter (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

"involved editors should not be answering an edit request"? Where is that coming from? On the contrary, involved editors are better placed to answer edit requests, as they are familiar with the topic, than random passer bys. I am not sure why you are sharing your personal opinions as if it is policy. But the page WP:ER makes no mention of "Involved editors", perhaps you should ask this to be included in the policy page first. Agree on the not harassing the admin part which is why I closed it but since I have been reverted, nothing else I can do about it. Venkat TL (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a standard use of edit request. It is caused by an admin needing to protect the page from your edit-warring. If you can not understand why that means you or anyone else responsible for the page lock should not be answering edit requests that you have no capability of carrying out, there are more formal places we can discuss disruptive editing, which is exactly what I am trying to avoid with my advice above. Slywriter (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Note to self: Posting controversial edit requests while participating in edit war is fine. Answering it is not. Venkat TL (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Save the snide comments for elsewhere. You have zero capability to implement the edit request, so you can not answer it. That's a simple fact. Responding is one thing, altering the template when you can not effect the change even if you agree is improper and given its in the midst of an edit war, disruptive. Slywriter (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

In this particular case, I had the capability to answer, since it did not require editing the page or any extra capability (like closing a AfD as keep). This is fact. Venkat TL (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done Note, this page is no longer protected and may be directly editing. Please ensure that contentious edits have reached a consensus to avoid edit warring and further protections. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 July 2022

Please add this to the, "Perpetrators " section: Investigation agencies suspect a wider involvement of terror groups in the killing of Kanhaiya Lal. Mossad3 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC

• Oppose speculation based on unclear sources. Venkat TL (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL, I have provided a reliable source.-Mossad3 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mossad3@Venkat TL Is India Today considered a generally reliable source for India-related topics? Tow (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes.-Mossad3 (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tow No, India Today is a godi media channel and has a pro government bias, it should not be used on politics related articles. Refer [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Venkat TL (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Venkat, you cant cook up your own rules for RS by throwing pejorative terms about the sources that you don't like. By throwing Twitter link, and actual unreliable sources like clarionindia.net, nationalherald, you have proven that you don't understand what is a WP:RS. India today is a longstanding RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI

• India Today spreading fake news
• India Today editor rapped for spreading fake news
• Fact-checking India Today’s erroneous fact-check on Gajendra Chauhan’s tweet
• At India Today, Anchors Can Spread Fake News While Editor is Sacked For Speaking Out
• India Today takes anchor Rajdeep Sardesai off air for 2 weeks for tweet during farmers’ tractor rally Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes no sense for you to cite these links. They are very far from being enough for rejecting a well reputed outlet like India Today because India Today has already retracted those claims in a timely fashion as noted by these sources you cited. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Dainik Bhaskar pressured to delete the video report of Kanhaiyalal's killer having links with BJP

कुमार, अवधेश (7 July 2022). "कन्हैयालाल के हत्यारे का भाजपा से संबंध वाली वीडियो रिपोर्ट दैनिक भास्कर ने क्यों डिलीट की? (Why Dainik Bhaskar deleted the video report of Kanhaiyalal's killer having links with BJP?)". Newslaundry. Venkat TL (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about Attari's infiltration in BJP

Should the Perpetrators section of the article include the line: "On 1 July 2022, it was reported that Attari may have been planning to infiltrate the BJP through its loyalists."--Venkat TL (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Source: Ojha, Arvind; Hizbullah, Md (1 July 2022). "Udaipur assailants may have plotted to infiltrate Rajasthan BJP Exclusive". India Today.

See: Special:Diff/1096311648/1096314102

Prior discussion thread : Speculations of Rahul Kanwal

• Oppose this is negative content about a living person (Attari) and WP:SUSPECT applies. This line is clearly speculated and reliable sources have noted that no evidence has been forwarded to support the conspiracy theory of infiltration. These speculations fail WP:BLP and may change at a later time after court screening. Statements based on interrogation are not admissible as evidence in the court. So we should not add it. Hindustan Times (HT) is different site Notes "During interrogation, accused Riyaz Atri has not uttered a word about his trying to enter BJP or target the saffron party leaders." So I would take this speculation from "unknown sources" with a large teaspoon of salt. . Also there are reports of BJP pressurizing a Newspaper to remove news about his BJP membership (Why Dainik Bhaskar deleted the video report of Kanhaiyalal's killer having links with BJP?. Also India Today is a godi media channel and has a pro government bias, it should not be used on politics related articles. Refer [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

(News)... by India Today with a headline claiming that the Udaipur duo “may have plotted to infiltrate Rajasthan BJP”. However, that claim of attempted “infiltration” – which is not sourced to any BJP leader or security official – appears to be the TV channel’s own spin and is belied by the BJP functionaries’ own Facebook posts describing Attari as a party worker. Ordinarily, evidence of such connections with killers ends up damaging the reputation of the politician and party involved. But a whole day after the India Today story, there seems to be little evidence of any media appetite for a follow up.- "As Photos Emerge of Udaipur Killer's Links to BJP Leaders, Party Moves to Damage Control Mode". The Wire. 2 July 2022.

Venkat TL (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

And The Wire is completely reliable? Kpddg ^(talk) 12:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Reject and close improper RfC for failing WP:RFCBEFORE. There is clear cut consensus on this section, this section and also this BLPN thread. This RfC looks nothing more than attempt to WP:STONEWALL against the already established consensus against personal views of Venkat TL, who is alone with his blatant misrepresentation of BLP. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment While I think framing as a BLP issue is questionable, the RfC is proper to establish whether the material is WP:DUE and WP:V through WP:RS. Of the 3 threads cited above, the first is a small local discussion, the second is the two of you re-hashing your previous positions and the third is about the BLP concerns being likely over-stated. RfC invites outside opinions and allows for a formal definitive close. Also as Wikipedia has no deadlines, stonewalling would be an editor continuing this disagreement to prevent inclusion or omission after the RfC concludes. Slywriter (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
• BLP is clearly not an issue here so I don't see how this RfC makes any sense. This edit needs to be restored since it perfectly summarized the incident which was unnecessarily reverted here by the OP. The entire story is that the two alleged were attending lots of BJP events, and an individual with direct knowledge of their activities told these 2 suspects were secretly very critical of BJP and opposed "the party bitterly in private conversations with friends".[18] India Today, an outright reliable source added that these individuals could be trying to infiltrate and Hindustan Times did the same. Then Indian National Congress (leading opposition to BJP) took the pics at face value, and said these individuals were BJP members but there is no evidence of that and BJP has rejected these claims. This is all covered by the second cited source on the article.[19] The clear solution of this problem would be to restore this edit. If these claims failed to get any additional coverage in next few months then we can get rid of them entirely afterward but showing one-sided story would only violate WP:NPOV. Dympies (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Dympies this article is now under Discretionary sanctions for users who edit pages related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, including this article. I'm guessing you haven't read WP:BLP. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: When I said "BLP is clearly not an issue here" I was not saying that the article involves no BLP because the dispute here involves the suspects who are alive. I was actually highlighting that there is no problem related to BLP as incorrectly claimed by the OP because the wording about the suspects because the sentence is correctly representing reliable sources and it does not contradict any points at WP:BLP. Dympies (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I just wanted to make sure everyone was clear about BLP applying to the victim as well. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Mossad3 CU blocked as a sock of Y2edit?

Which means that all article edits can be reverted, unanswered talk page posts also. Others can be struck through. Doug Weller talk 07:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 July 2022

Delete this paragraph from the "Perpetrators" section:

On 1 July 2022, pictures of Mohammad Riyaz Attari emerged which showed him attending BJP events. In a 2020 post on facebook, Attari was described by a local Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader as a "dedicated worker of the BJP".

References

This paragraph is an egregious violation of WP:SOCIALMEDIA as it clearly "involves claims about third parties" viz. Bharatiya Janata Party, and there is "reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" since the claims come from a Facebook post whose authenticity has not been vetted by law/judiciary. Without further explanation or context, this paragraph also gives WP:UNDUE weight to an unverified claim, deliberately creates WP:FALSEBALANCE and amplifies political mudslinging in WP:WIKIVOICE. 49.37.247.133 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose verified claim with evidence in the links above. Attributed to the person, not in WP:WIKIVOICE. Venkat TL (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Not done Note, this page is no longer protected and may be directly editing. Please ensure that contentious edits have reached a consensus to avoid edit warring and further protections. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)