Talk:2020 Palghar mob lynching/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Discuss

@Pratap Pandit: please explain your rationale why the information of no one is Muslim should be in WP:LEAD. -- Brihaspati (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I had added the line 

Maharashtra Home minister, released a full list of 101 men who were arrested, and said none of them were Muslims.

Brihaspati, Please read the WP:LEAD You are saying it is nor fit for LEAD, but it is THE MOST IMPORTANT LINE of the article. Please see this news article why it is important. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/no-muslim-arrested-for-palghar-lynching-incident-maharashtra-minister-anil-deshmukh/articleshow/75288363.cms

This has become a very big case in India and BJP is saying the killers are Muslim. That is why Home Minister has to say that none of the 101 attackers were Muslims. Now you are removing important facts from the article LEAD to spread rumours. You must restore my line or else I will ask Administrator to block you. Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please provide reference for "BJP is saying the killers are Muslim" else it is not suitable for WP:LEAD. Also sign your comments. --Kartik Mistry talk 16:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


I had added the line 

Maharashtra Home minister, released a full list of 101 men who were arrested, and said none of them were Muslims.

here is the reference. None of 101 people arrested in Palghar case is a Muslim: Maharashtra home minister https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/none-of-101-people-arrested-in-palghar-case-is-a-muslim-maharashtra-home-minister/articleshow/75288363.cms

Since the content is very relevant and important it must be in the LEAD so please add it now. Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@KartikMistry: The fact that "no Muslims" is mentioned in three headlines of news articles suggest it probably is an important part of the story, which should be added to the lead. MrClog (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Done, and fixed reference on LEAD. --Kartik Mistry talk 16:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

MrClog Thank you for checking the articles. Brihaspati, KartikMistry and GreaterPonce665 had been threatening and ganging up on me and had made a complete mockery of rules here. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pratap Pandit:, no one threatens you. Your language is not suitable for Wikipedia and you are bound to rules if you're editing. @Brihaspati:, see this user's abusive behavior --Kartik Mistry talk 16:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
KartikMistry, he called me that I work for BJP on his talk page and on teahouse. If User:Pratap Pandit is going to use same language then I am sure he will not survive on Wikipedia. Brihaspati (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at my talk page and you will find all these threats of blocking and what not. An administrator has already warned you guys so it should be very clear to you, who needs to behave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Pratap_Pandit_reported_by_User:GreaterPonce665_(Result:_No_violation_). Thank you for restoring my edits in the article. Pratap Pandit (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Time of Arrest

"police arrested 101 persons within 8 hrs of the offence."

KartikMistry, this was already mentioned in the news link here https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/no-muslims-among-101-accused-for-palghar-sadhu-lynching-maha-home-minister-anil-deshmukh

You have removed the news link and also falsified the arrest date. Please correct your mistake. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

We need more references than statements from the minister here --Kartik Mistry talk 16:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying The Home Minister is lying here ? This came in the Marathi papers on 18 April itself. You can attribute the claim to HM if that is your concern. But there is no reason to remove this fact and falsify the date of arrest. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Any English references would be fine. --Kartik Mistry talk 16:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Please attribute the information about the arrest to Home Minister and add it. The news link is already added above. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

According to Home Minister Desmukh, 101 persons were arrested by the police within 8 hours of the offence. https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/no-muslims-among-101-accused-for-palghar-sadhu-lynching-maha-home-minister-anil-deshmukh

Please use the line above in the article in arrest section. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added the line "According to Maharashtra Home Minister, Anil Deshmukh, 101 persons were arrested by the police within 8 hours of the offence."Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Arnab's theatrics

Reraju, I dont think this article needs to explain the theatrics by Arnab. According to Rajdeep Sardesai, Arnab never attended any meeting or did any work for the guild. Please add that information on Arnab's article this is not the right place. There was no cover up, and Reraju did not add any proof of the coverup. See this report from 17 itself. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/west/three-beaten-to-death-in-maharahstras-palghar-826405.html

Because of all these reasons it is wrong to add this content without discussion. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There could be a line in reactions section (w/ reputable ref.) about the whole Arnab drama (which I have no idea what is about), but there's no reason to have a whole section on this page about it. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no mention of the Missionaries in the entire article. Looks like the editor will only believe in whatever has been said by Rajdeep Sardesai (Redacted) Either turn this article public or we create a different article Imlipop (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

The Real intention of the attack has still not been uncovered. CBI is probing involvement of a Local NCP Politician after the Female Sarpanch has said that the NCP Politician was present at the place of attack.

Palghar District is know for Missionary Religious Activities. Police are also investigating a Hate Crime against the Hindus in the Area.

A Notable Journalist and owner of Republic Media Network was attacked after he raised questions related to the Missionary involvement in the Crime. He accused Opposition party of Congress on trying to white wash the incident.

At 12.00 AM on 22nd April Arnab Goswami's Car was attacked by 2 vigilants who were captured by the Police Security. On Investigation they confessed of being part of Yuva Congress. As of now no FIR is filled with name of Indian National Congress. Imlipop (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MrClog (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Lines on Whatsapp are fake. The incident was fueled by WhatsApp rumours, about thieves operating in the area, during the country wide lock-down due to the coronavirus. The vigilante group of villagers had mistaken the three passengers as thieves and killed them.

This is an alibi. During lockdown the crime rate has gone down tremendously. There were no incidents of any mischief in the region. This is propaganda. Dsbakshi2000 (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarifications needed on edits and suggestions

Since there are significant edits done by Pratap Pandit in this page, can you please elaborate on following edits.

  1. In lead, With this edit, Why "lynched in the presence of police" is removed but "policemen intervened" is retained at the same time? The sentence, lynched in the presence of police who stood mutely or did little to protect is different than saying "Policemen did intervened". Both sentences means different and not the same. In the video clips Sadhu being lynched while Police is seen going away from him. Several sources describes inaction of Police in protecting Sadhu from getting lynched. cbsindianexpress
  2. In section Incident: In this edit, description of video is added "Policemen are seen in the video trying to control the situation". But in which video among 3 videos, are Policemen are seen controlling situation?

Suggestions:

  1. Regarding a statement from Police, that Police had tried to control the mob and received injuries, is it not better to rephrase it to Police had "claimed to control the mob" since videos tells otherwise, lynching did happened and investigation is still going on
  2. In Section Arrest:
    1. Edit1Edit2 Edit3 Reactionary statements can be added in its dedicated section and not needed in "arrest section". A section dedicated to Reaction was and is existing next to it. Through above mentioned edits, statements like the following are added: Anil Deshmukh posted a complete list of people arrested and said "The list of the 101 arrested in the #Palghar incident. Especially sharing for those who were trying to make this a communal issue.", " BJP-led opposition in Maharashtra was trying to make the lynching a Hindu-Muslim incident".
    2. Also in this Edit, why chief minister statement in this section? This CM statment can be moved in reaction section. XGammaRay (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

:Since it was you who had added these things, can you please also update the above explaining, why you wrote these lines in this way ? It will be easier to discuss, if you give complete picture. Pratap Pandit (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean by "Since it was you who had added these things, can you please also update the above explaining, why you wrote these lines in this way?. Please read again my questions again. Except suggestions, question is on for the rest of the above mentioned edits which are done by you. XGammaRay (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

I found some word in lead such as this:

  • The incident was fueled by WhatsApp rumours of thieves operating in the area during the country wide coronvirus lock-down.

But I found two issues regarding the word. First, fueled was American spelling, which in Indian articles must be avoided, and lock-down was grammatically uncorrected when founded in sources. So please change that word to sentences which using Indian English, become:

  • The incident was fuelled by WhatsApp rumours of thieves operating in the area during the country wide coronavirus lockdown. 36.77.134.116 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 11:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

  1. In Section Arrest, please add the following: As of April 23, Police are trying to locate the absconding accused who are believed to be hiding in the nearby jungle. IndiaTodaymid-day
  2. To update number of accused in infobox: From the existing "101 villagers, 9 Juveniles, 2 Policemen" to "101 Villages, 9 Juvelines, 2 Policemen, others absconding". XGammaRay (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
No, Both your proposed edits are highly controversial. I disagree with both edits.
(1)This is an old news, which talks about police looking to "identify" and find other accused. Your proposal is both outdated and misleading.
(2)The Policemen are not accused in the killing that you are trying to portray. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. There are objections, so please work on gaining consensus for your proposed changes through discussion. El_C 11:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Info of bystander videos in the introduction and widespread criticism

Currently the introduction is missing a sentence on how this incident got attention after videos went viral on 19th April and also widespread criticism of local authorities and the state Govt as 2 days before they had issued statement that Police had tried to save the Sadhus. This information of difference in statements seen in media reports on 17th April and the viral videos is prominent. Because of videos and criticism, CM, Ex-CM, State Home Minister and many more had issued statement on 19th April.

Following is my proposal to add in the introduction: Initially local Police had issued statment on April 17 that they had tried to protect the victims from the mob. But in the bystander video which went viral on April 19 Police is seen not helping Sadhu who repeatedly runs for protection from Police. This attracted wide spread criticism on Police and Maharashtra Government. XGammaRay (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Where is the source for this ? --Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Here are the initial media reports of 17th April where Police had claimed that they had tried to protect the victims from mob.The HinduIndiaTodayJagaran
  • Here are the reports from 19th April where media reports mention videos of going viral and widespread criticism of Maharashtra Government and Police as Police were seen not protecting victims and repeatedly pushing them towards mob.IndiaTVIndiaToday
These information were added in this edit earliar. XGammaRay (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

These are the reports from 17 April. that says that the Police had tried and also got injured due to being beaten by the crowd.

So your proposal that this incident did not get attention is not true. Many murders happen everyday in India, and not every murder gets discussed. After the video clips of the incident went viral, and IT Cells got involved, then this event got blown out of proportions. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all its wrong to equate mob lynching with murder. That too equating murder with lynching in presence of Police is not at all correct. Its better to form sentences based on references, official statements and video clips of the incident. Incident got attention not just because of video clip but also because Police had claimed otherwise that tried to save them in their previous press statement. Thats why two reports referred from the date after viral video clip mentions widespread criticism on Police and Maharashtra Government. Thats what I had clearly said in my proposal, initially on April 17, Police had claimed that they tried to protect but it was evident in video clips that Police had pushed Sadhu into mob which lynched him, which was different than their earlier claims. XGammaRay (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the initial reports were published when the police investigation was ongoing. The later reports mention about the police suspension, the decision could have taken time. There is no source that says, police only suspended after video was released. The video are short clips of certain moments of the incident. There is no complete video of the entire incident. It is wrong to make conclusion about the entire incident only by looking at a few video clips that only recorded a few minutes.Pratap Pandit (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Its not what we think ourselves or assume. The information has to be added has to be based on reliable sourcesWP:RS. Clearly videos of April 19 shows different than the claims of Police of April 17. If there is any more video clips, then accordingly information can be updated. The available video clips clearly shows mob lynching and specifically "mob lynching" is the title of this page. For now, it is evident from the video that victim was pushed to mob by Police but Police had claimed otherwise. It was evident from the number of media reports(again referred in the previous comments) that widespread criticism was reported on April 19 after videos went viral and videos does not support initial claims of administration. XGammaRay (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Also Police officers of Kasa Police station were suspended only on April 20.IndiaToday XGammaRay (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
the pushing is not mentioned in the link. Please discuss the changes. It is not appropriate to make claims on entire incident based on a few video. Please propose your version with the links inline for discussion. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Its not about drawing conclusion or PoV commentary on one video or report. Here forming WP:NOV content based on WP:RS. Following is the proposal 

This incident attracted nationwide outrage on April 19, after a bystander video went viral where Police appears to make little effort to save a Sadhu and allegedly allows the mob to take control of him while he repeatedly begs for his life. Initially on April 17, Local administration and Police had claimed that they had tried to stop them. This case drew criticism on Maharashtra Government.
  1. Ref 1 and 2 on viral video, cbs, IndiaToday
  2. Ref-3 for April 17 claims IndiaToday
  3. Ref-4 on criticism IndiaNews XGammaRay (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by " Here forming WP:NOV content", this is an encyclopedia not a novel. Nationwide outrage is a biased line from one source. Not every Indian was outraged. Please see the coverage in International media instead of the jingoistic Indian media. International media like BBC and CBS dont use such words. " Police appears to make little effort ", "allows the mob to take control of him" are again biased statements. Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  1. How can you say, CBS dont use such words. Following are the exact words from CBS report "the police officer appears to make little effort to save him". Please refer CBS report again.
  2. Outrage is reflected not just in the difference in the number media reports before and after video went viral on April 19, but also almost all statements issued on this matter by different people are after April 19. Including statement issued by Chief minister of Maharashtra and Home Minister. Suspension of police was done on April 20. Statements from Devendra Fadnavis, Yogi Adityanath, Union Home Minister and Mahanth of Akhara are issued on or after April 19. Also statements from other members of Congress, NCP and Shiv Sena are after this. Sources of those reports are available in the reaction section of this article. Most of the media reports from both National and International media on this incident are on or after April 19.
  3. You are repeatedly accusing several WP:RS media reports provided in this thread and in talk page here as as "biased statements" or "jingoistic" Indian media. From my understanding instead of accusing media here, you can get consensus through discussion in WP:RS NoticeBoard. XGammaRay (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

::::#the police officer appears to make little effort to save him, is opinion of this author. It is unfit for a neutral encyclopedia that reports facts.

  1. nationwide outrage is again an opinion and not a fact.
  2. I did not understand what you are asking me to do. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Several sources on alleged Police inaction is added separately in another thread. Outrage and widespread media coverage is an observation supported by a WP:RS. It is based on fact of more number of media reports before and after April 19, action from Maharashtra Government, Ministers and Police. How else do you describe this significant difference in coverage and actions before and after April 19?. Third point is, you are accusing most of the media reports provided as reference in talk page as bias or jignoistic. Those are personal opinions and not a consensus. To get consensus on any doubtful media report as you are accusing, do raise a request in WP:RS noticeboard and get consensus on such matters. According to consensus, further action here can be taken to consider that source as WP:RS or not. XGammaRay (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Please change typo text from: "The country wide coronvirus lockdown" to "the country-wide coronavirus lockdown" 36.77.92.11 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but used "countrywide". GoingBatty (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

In the infobox, accused line. Remove 2 policemen from the list of the accused. As it is unsourced.

The infobox was added by user XGammaRay without any factual basis and No reliable source claims that the policemen are the accused in the lynching. This is a false information and misleads the reader into thinking that the police is also involved in the killing, when they are not. The reliable source only says 2 cops were suspended for alleged dereliction of duty, i.e. the failure to control the situation. That is not the same as being accused for lynching. Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Well, if they allowed it to happen, they can be seen as complicit rather than complacent. At any rate, please ensure you have consensus for this change first. El_C 12:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

::We dont know it yet, may be they were complacent, may be they were scared for their life and did not want to end up dead like Inspector Subodh. The point that matters right now is there is "NO" reliable source that claims these 2 cops are "accused" in the lynching of the 3 men, that the infobox claims. El_C, that information should be removed immediately from infobox for being unsourced. No one asked GammaRay for Consensus or reliable source to add this piece of false information, but I am being asked to discuss for removing this. I feel this is unfair. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done. You make a good point. I have removed the 2 policemen from the infobox. El_C 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
El_C, I agree with this action. But in the "arrest" section, is it not needed to add that there are accused who are absconding and Police are searching for them in the dense forest. Source for it was provided the previous edit request. XGammaRay (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
XGammaRay, sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. El_C 14:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
El_C, My request is to add following line in Arrests section of this article page: "As of April 23, Police are trying to locate the absconding accused who are believed to be hiding in the nearby dense forest. IndiaTodaymid-day." The line can be appended in the end of first paragraph in that section. XGammaRay (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Unless there are objections, I'm happy to oblige. But I do ask that you attach the sources as refs first. El_C 15:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I have objections, because these are old and outdated reports. Police has arrested 101 people since then. If there are further arrests/accused on run, then the reports will come accordingly and the new number can be updated. Infobox must only have undisputed fact Pratap Pandit (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit, what you are telling is not true. Please read the reports referred again. You are telling "Reports referred are old. Police has arrested 101 since then". IndiaToday report is from April 23, MidDay report is from April 20, here Outlook report with input from IANS is from April 20 and Bhaskar from April 21. All of those reports clearly mention that already 110 are arrested and still combing operations going on in the jungle in search of the absconding accused. You added through this edit that 101 accused were arrested within 8 hours of this incident on April 16. It means, those 101 were arrested on April 17 itself. Reports on absconding are from later dates. Then how those reports are old and outdated? XGammaRay (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
101 + 9 is the only confirmed number of accused as of now. When confirmed report of new number of accused comes, the article infobox can be updated to reflect the new number. Speculative reports and info should not be added in an infobox that is supposed to have undisputed info.Pratap Pandit (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit You initially said the given sources are old-outdated and now doubting four different sources as "speculative" reports. But you are not explaining how they are speculative or out-dated reports?. When a new number of accused comes, then accordingly this statement will be either removed or updated. XGammaRay (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C, Thanks for your feedback, I created proposal with refs. As of April 23, Police were trying to locate the absconding accused who are believed to be hiding in the nearby dense forest. [1] [2] [3] [4] XGammaRay (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Vaktania, Saurabh (2020-04-23). "Palghar mob could have lynched me too, says woman sarpanch". India Today. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
  2. ^ Sharma, Diwakar (2020-04-20). "Palghar mob-lynching: 9 out of 110 arrested are juvenile, say cops". mid-day. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
  3. ^ "Palghar lynching: Maha suspends 2 cops, gives probe to CID (Ld)". Outlook. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
  4. ^ "पालघर लिंचिंग: जांच शुरू; 250 फरार". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 2020-04-21. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
Which source says that the cops were trying to locate absconders as of 23 April ? please provide the reliable source and the quote. Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Report from IndiaToday referred in the proposal is dated 23 April and it has following text. "Meanwhile, the police have now begun patrolling the area with the help of drone cameras to locate and identify the absconding accused." XGammaRay (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
India today does not mention that this "as of 23 April they are doing that" The article is old and it was "updated" on 23 April. Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
So how is it "old"?, You have already accused the given source as "{{tq|old}" and it was already answered by giving 4 independent reports as source. According to your edit to the page, where it was added that 110 was arrested within 8hrs of the incident, i.e, 17 April. Whereas all four referred reports are from future dates and themselves mention that there were still some absconding accused in addition to those arrested earlier. Then how these four reports become an old report?. Infact, Dainik Bhaskar from 21 April, mentions that 250 are still absconding. And the proposed sentence is formed based on the report date and content based on 4 sources. XGammaRay (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Police pushing a Sadhu towards mob

XGammaRay Please discuss the disputed edit instead of edit warring. I have read more than 20 news articles. pushing is not mentioned in those. If only 1 says so, then it is not necessary that it has to be added. Pratap Pandit (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all this thread has nothing to do with pushing away the Sadhu. Lets focus on the lead proposal and lengthy discussions with sources provided so far. But since edit was reverted even after of source was given, from my understanding if a source qualifies WP:RS, then it could be considered. Source provided on "Pushing of Sadhu by police" in this edit is from IndianExpress, which I believe is WP:RS. XGammaRay (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Pratap Pandit, Can you please share with me where it is mentioned in Wikipedia Guidelines that if only 1 WP:RS describes something, then it is not necessary to be added? XGammaRay (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Police pushing the Sadhu toward mob is clearly captured in video. All the reports linked in this thread describe that action in one or the other similar words. So with this video evidence and different descriptions, how is it a Fringe theory. Other source describe inaction as "Police stood mutely". This inaction of Police needs to be added. XGammaRay (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

::::Pushing is that particular author's interpretation of the video. I am saying that this author is the only one who thinks that cops were pushing. No other journalist or news site reported that they were pushed. so this is a and extremely biased minority viewpoint and a Fringe theory. Why are you pushing extreme minority view points on this article here ? Please clarify your conflict of Interest. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal comments without evidence, like "clarify your CoI". As suggested here to you already , please lets focus on the discussion and not personal comments. XGammaRay (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I have rephrased my proposal in the third comment in this thread, the proposal is to arrive at a description of Police allegedly failing to save the Sadhus based on several WP:RS. Its not minority point of view, several national and International media reports given below has described it in that way.
Source Description of police action as seen in video
CBS Makes little effort to save the Sadhu
IndianExpress Stood mutely when mob attacked three. Pushes subsequently a Sadhu away.
IndiaToday Sadhus allegedly lynched in the presence of police.
Police Allegedly failed to take adequate measures to prevent the incident.
Instead of protecting the sadhus and their driver, allegedly allowed the mob to take control of them.
TimesOfIndia Failing to protect the victims.
HindustanTimes Sadhus killed allegedly in the presence of Police
Policemen seen watching the incident without making any intervention
IndianExpress Police seen simply walking away while the mob attacks a Sadhu
initial version of table on - XGammaRay (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC), updated table with more source XGammaRay (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Background section removed by Kartik

In past, Indian whatsapp lynchings have occurred where in quick fake news propagation have led to violent outcomes. Often the fake news involve rumours of child kidnapping or roaming bandits.[1][2]

I did not add this but this is sourced content and relevant for proper understanding of the topic. Why are you removing this again and again without a good reason ? --Pratap Pandit (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Even after asking Kartik twice, on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KartikMistry#Palghar he has not replied yet. He refers to the edit summary that says "Background - removed unneeded section." This is not clear why he feels it is unneeded. This is related to the topic for proper understanding. Even in Palghar case there were rumours of thieves and child lifters, and there were some incidents in this village in past, so I am readding it and expanding. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there any source that says this particular happened with WhatsApp lynchings? -- Kartik Mistry talk 12:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Please see [3] Pratap Pandit (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I had added it as a prelude of a kind, but there was no current sources back then so KartikMistry was correct in his assessment. I'm glad to see it back in with citations. GreaterPonce665 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Murderous mob — 9 states, 27 killings, one year: And a pattern to the lynchings". The Indian Express. 15 July 2018. Retrieved 21 April 2020.
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52350728
  3. ^ पालघर लिंचिंग : व्हाट्सएप से फैली थी अफवाह, सरपंच ने बताई सच्चाई | Patrika News https://www.patrika.com/miscellenous-india/palghar-lynching-rumor-spread-via-whatsapp-sarpanch-chitra-told-truth-6029242/

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Please change

Incident

Two Sadhus belonging to the Juna Akhara, Chikne

to

Incident

Two Juna Akhara Sadhus belonging to the Gosavi nomadic tribe,[1] Chikne

References

  1. ^ Grewal, Kairvy (22 April 2020). "Sadhus lynched in Palghar were affiliated with this UP akhara, the largest in India". ThePrint. Retrieved 26 April 2020.

Quote: "The sadhus – 70-year-old Kalpvrush Giri and 35-year-old Sushil Giri – belonged to the Gosavi nomadic tribe. " Pratap Pandit (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Aasim 10:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Please consider following requests which are same but in different sections of the article.

Request-1 In the WP:LEAD

From: As of 20 April, 101 villagers have been arrested by the Maharashtra police on charges of murder and an investigation is ongoing.[4][5] After the incident,

To: As of 20 April, 101 villagers have been arrested by the Maharashtra police on charges of murder and an investigation is ongoing.[4][5] Two Policemen are suspended for alleged negligence on duty.[1][2][3][4] After the incident,

Request-2 In section: Arrests

From : and two police officers were suspended.

To: and two police officers were suspended for alleged negligence on duty. [1] [2] [3] [4]

References

  1. ^ a b "Two police officers suspended after Palghar mob lynching incident". India Today. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
  2. ^ a b "CID takes over Palghar lynching case, day after notice to police from human rights panel". Hindustan Times. 2020-04-22. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
  3. ^ a b "Most of the accused in Palghar lynching are BJP members: Congress". Deccan Herald. 2020-04-20. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
  4. ^ a b "No Muslim Among 101 People Arrested For Palghar Lynching: Maharashtra Minister Anil Deshmukh". Outlook. 2020-04-22. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

XGammaRay (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

None of the 2 requests above, should be done. I have objections for both the request 1. this is not worthy for lead. I have partial objections for Request 2. See my proposal related to below. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. XGammaRay It appears that there may not be a consensus for the edit you are requesting. Please work on a compromise that we can all agree on before using the {{editprotected}} template. Aasim 15:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2020

Request-2 In section: Arrests

From : and two police officers were suspended.

To: and two police officers were suspended for alleged negligence on duty, until an inquiry is conducted in the case. [1]

References

  1. ^ "Two police officers suspended after Palghar mob lynching incident". India Today. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

Reason: It is important to point that the inquiry is not concluded yet and these cops can be exonerated if the enquiry finds them innocent. --Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Pratap Pandit It appears that there may not be a consensus for the edit you are requesting. Please work on a compromise that we can all agree on before using the {{editprotected}} template. Aasim 16:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
XGammaRay do you have any objections ? Pratap Pandit (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
There is no objection by anyone. Please add the sourced content--Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done for now, if there is controversy later on I can revert my edit. Aasim 16:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

In the infobox, change, 

accused       = 101 villagers, 9 juveniles

to 

accused       = 115 villagers, including 9 juveniles

source : https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/five-more-arrested-in-palghar-lynching-case-1673383-2020-05-01  Pratap Pandit (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Nithintalk 21:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Palghar_mob_lynching/Archive_1&oldid=991280602"