Talk:Nupur Sharma

Notability

Fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E ) Venkat TL (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you check the citations and their dates? Or even read the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL and Kautilya3 there is now an article on the controversial remarks (2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy) and further expansion should probably happen there and not here. Expanding this article's section on the controversy risks making it into an article about the event instead of the person, which is bit of a WP:COATRACK.VR _talk 01:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I have redirected here since that article was created just a few hours ago. Zimi09 should always check for existing articles before creating content forks. LearnIndology (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: this article is about the person, while 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy is about the event(s). That's not a fork (unless you think that Sharma is only notable for this single event). Lets discuss at that article's talk page.VR _talk 05:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: We can't waste community's time to discuss content forks, and you need to get consensus on this main page as to why we need to fork it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: a community wide consensus is always stronger than a local consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). Also, you still haven't addressed the central point in this discussion: is Nupul Sharma notable for something other than this one event? If yes, then these are already two different topics: one is about a person whose larger than a single event, the other is about an event which has since become more important than a single person.VR _talk 05:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: But you need to describe why that POVFORK is so important. It seems that the content was entirely lifted from this article in violation of WP:COPYRIGHTS without proper attribution. The only thing that was original was addition of more reactions which included some quotefarming. It makes no sense to try retaining a POVFORK like that. LearnIndology (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It would be nothing more than a waste of time. The notability issue was already resolved when the significant coverage from reliable sources dating before 2022 was added.[1] If you are thinking of redirecting this article to that content fork then I say that it won't work. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: if you think Nupul Sharma is notable outside this single event, then that is evidence that the 2022 controversy is a different topic than Sharma. Two different topics means two different wikipedia articles.VR _talk 05:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@LearnIndology: why do you keep saying its a POV fork? Can you explain how it can be a fork when article is about a person and the other is about an event? If there are attribution issues then they can be resolved without blanking the other article.VR _talk 05:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Created by copy pasting content from this page without any attribution to this page and the only thing that was original was some extra quotefarming. It's a WP:POVFORK and shouldn't be retained. LearnIndology (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Policy is clear on this matter: "An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting."[2] Since at least three users have opposed the blanking[3][4][5], not including the user who created the article and others who have edited the article in the meantime, its quite obvious that the blanking here is "controversial". Please use AfD to get consensus.VR _talk 05:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

That has to do nothing with POVFORK created just hours ago without gaining consensus here as required by policy. LearnIndology (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp and @LearnIndology Please stop edit warring. Naveen Jindal cannot be discussed here. International doplomatic situation cannot be discussed here. The scope of the 2 articles are clearly different. Venkat TL (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Naveen Jindal is not notable for discussion on Wikipedia and 'international reaction' can be written in few words like "Diplomats from xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, reacted to the video", instead of posting long quotations about each. Another article talking about the same subject is not needed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like I am not being clear enough. Let me try again, THEY ARE NOT SAME SUBJECT. ONE IS A BIO, OTHER IS AN EVENT ARTICLE. "Kanpur Violence: At Least 40 Injured, Police Register 3 FIRs Against 500 People". The Wire. Retrieved 7 June 2022. In addition to my above comment, Kanpur violence and its aftermath cannot be discussed here on Nupur's BIO (Nupur Sharma (politician)). 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy is the right place to elaborate the entire event. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition to Venkat's link, many sources have given significant coverage to what this means for India's trade relations with the GCC (BBC News,ALJazeera, [6][7] etc). That is beyond the scope of this article.VR _talk 07:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: You were already clear enough but this time your message is missing relevance. This article got expanded ONLY because of this recent incident and everything was well added here. There was no need to create a new article by duplicating this article and copy-pasting everything there.

Kanpur violence seems notable on its own. We have article on 2016 Kaliachak riots which happened after remarks by Kamlesh Tiwari on Muhammad. You can create a new article for Kanpur violence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes Eventually Kanpur violence article will be forked off, right now it is 4-5 lines only. It is right now too short. The controversy article is the right place to discuss all the background and aftermath. Doint everything at Nupur's bio will be stretching it too much. Already the bio is unbalanced, with focus on 1Event. Venkat TL (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: So what? You can create it now. Stub creation is allowed. WP:CFORKING requires consensus and you haven't gained one so far. The article on the controversy is plagued with WP:TOOMUCH if anything. LearnIndology (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@LearnIndology of course I understand it can be created now. Both will need same background about the controversy. So once the Violence section has enough content it may be forked. Whether the separate Kanpur violence article exists or not, a section on Kanpur violence will still be needed on the Controversy event article. I respect your opinion and suggestions on the content, "too much" - "too less" etc, but they are subjective and vary from person to person, that is something that needs to be discussed on the talk page for consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Discussion was supposed to be done before the content forking. This does not justify parking same content in two places. If you are taking responsibility of the controversy article then you should stubify the section on Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Comments_on_Prophet_Muhammad and only include no more than 1 paragraph that she made comments which attracted controversy and she got expelled. Yes the main link to the article can be retained. We will review in weeks if a separate article is still needed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp I agree with your suggestion about summarizing the controversy section on Nupur Bio, however I will not do it since I am 100% sure, that Kautilya3 will revert me and then they will file some kind of case somewhere against me. You know what happened in past so I dont need to explain why I am not interfering here. Venkat TL (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Change "Alt News denied any responsibility for the reaction the viewers after watching the video clip." to "Alt News denied any responsibility for the reaction by the viewers after watching the video clip." ("by" has been edited in the corrected sentence) EruOfArda (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you EruOfArda. Added. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Please change that mohammed sallahu alaihewasalm marige 9 year girl. It is not currect information .

203.192.243.5 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All Wikipedia content is written based on WP:Verifiablity and WP:NPOV. There will be no WP:CENSORing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there will be for this, because now there is just a vague explanation for what this was even about. I guess WP:Verifiablity and WP:NPOV don't matter if the wrong people don't like your facts. 24.182.239.226 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad

There are umpteen sources cited in the article, all of which call him "Prophet Muhammad". That includes CNN/Reuers. Can people please refrain from WP:OR and stick to sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Provide full name of "S. A. R. Geelani"

Please provide the full name of "S. A. R. Geelani". A contributor suggested that his name is "Syed Abdul Rahman Geelani". Is that correct? Mksword (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

No idea. He is always referred to as SAR Geelani in the sources. We should stick to WP:COMMONNAME and avoid WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mksword why do you think it is important to give the full name? cant see a reason. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)