Talk:I Protest

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

Sourcing[edit]

I removed a section sourced to a self published blog. Do not restore till reliable sourcing is found. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

[1] This is an opinion piece being used to support statements of fact and may not be used this way. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

I have removed a great part of WP:OR from this article. Please keep the article just to the scope of the song. The e-protesters group is a non-notable Facebook group. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged or not[edit]

And....exactly what substance is there behind this edit which labels the events as alleged? Mar4d (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide any source which says that all killings are proven. Also many of them were terrorists. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your explanation for reverting the perpetrator? (if that's not just WP:IDONTLIKEIT?) --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted Mar4d. You are most welcome to add it without touching the word "alleged". ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not revert content which you do not object again like this then. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The song was created in response to the 2010 Kashmir protest killings, which AFAIK, was a controversy involving the killing of Kashmiri civilians at the hands of Indian security forces. The word "alleged" is being misquoted here. Mar4d (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is alleged mate, there is no dispute over civilians being killed in the conflict. That's it, quit your bollocks now and back up your claim. The ball is in your court, prove that no civilians were killed. The content stays. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN is on you, proving is your headache. not mine. Also please don't cite essays. Just don't tell what you think, provide sources. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you know nothing about the background events, then what are you even doing on this talk page? Go read this now, the sources are there for you. Either make your case here or stop trolling and creating an artificial WP:BURDEN. Mar4d (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its disputed whether they were civilian or Pakistani infiltrators, so you should instead check it out. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since when did the "infiltrators" become the subject of this discussion? FFS, there were other civilians killed too in that unrest by Indian security forces. Don't you get it? And here are the "infiltrators" you keep talking about, who were Kashmiri citizens from Rafiabad, Jammu and Kashmir:

...When the bodies of three "militants" were exhumed on Friday almost a month after the Army had claimed to have killed them in an encounter on the Line of Control in Machil sector, it was established that they were not militants, but civilians who were lured to an Army camp in Kalaroos ahead of Kupwara and then killed in a staged encounter only to secure cash award. Police claim they have already cracked the case and arrested three persons: a jawan of the Territorial Army, a counter-insurgent and a former special police officer who had lured these three young men from their Nadihal village in Baramulla to Army’s 4 Rajputana camp at Kalaroos, from where they were ferried to the LoC and killed in a staged encounter at Sona Pindi. [1]

Last time, don't shoot yourself in the foot and make a case, if you have any. Mar4d (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is really funny. Those killings were not a part of the unrest, rather a reason for that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They were what started the unrest, followed by further civilian killings. Just a minute ago, you were talking about these same "infiltrators" and now you are backtracking on your words. Very funny Mar4d (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really not that funny. First, all killed were protesters, who were following violent ways of protesting. So terming them as "civilians", would be highly misleading. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do the perpetrators even deny the claim or only you are doing that? That should be the first question to be asked. Then we go to the above discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't ask questions... provide sources which says that the people who were killed didn't broke any rule. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse you'll be asked questions.. there's no need to use allege if it is not even denied... and breaking rules has nothing to do with it. It is sourced other wise. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well if someone breaks the law, and the police fires on him, then the one who is killed is not a civilian, rather a criminal. I hope you know the difference between civilian and criminal. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you want us here to prove innocence instead of you proving some one guilty! You really really need to learn about justice. Innocence is assumed, guilt has to be proved. That's something like police arresting you in the middle of the street and asking you to prove that you did not commit any crime...lol. Ridiculous. Though I believe that's something which is happening around Kashmir... and funny that you are defending it in those very terms. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vibhijain: This is becoming irrelevant. We are not here to discuss your political views. First you were blabbering on about "militants", now "protestors". Take a hike. The sources say civilians, we end it here. No more bullshit. Your myopic opinion has nothing to do with this. Before this steers further off-topic, this thread is moot and I suggest we stop wasting our time here with an editor who clearly doesn't know what he's going on about. Mar4d (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not pass uncivil remarks. My comment has justified the burden to be on you. Guilt is proved not innocence. And you've not given any denial too. Also the discussion goes towards stating as a fact other wise as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so when one says "bullshit", its civil, and when one says "nonsense", its uncivil. And you were teaching me about justice. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTTHEM. Do not disrupt this discussion further. And yes, you need to learn something about justice before you talk about it. If you do not know much about the topic, go and edit other topics, maybe about nursery rhymes or martian aliens. But it is common sense that you should not edit topics that you just proved above that you know nothing about. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its my wish what I want to edit and what I don't. Talk to the point, provide sources. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's be clear... still asking about sources for innocence? I'm out of here then... --lTopGunl (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What ever you want to think. Yeah, I am asking for sources. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bye bye then. I'm not going to provide source for what you want to add or need to prove. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me? You only said na that the the guilt has to be proved? If you believe that the allegations were proved, then prove. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's already sourced (if the source says it is "alleged" then you can call it that, or if there's a denial we can discuss further). You were talking about the civilians being criminal. Stick to a point and then discuss it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The civilian killings were alleged. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Fake encounter at LoC: 3 arrested, probe ordered". The Indian Express. 2010-05-29. Retrieved 11 August 2010.

Failed verification[edit]

The Times of India link[2] fails verification. I found a copy of it posted here[3] It has nothing to do with this song. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that should be removed. It only gives minor mention of the non notable Facebook group, which has nothing to do with the song. Good work by the way finding the text. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the book used as a source fails verification. The page given does not support the edit, I have removed the line which both these references do not support along with the references. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not use non RS for verification purposes. Follow WP:DEADLINK and also, even per that this is being verified. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only way to verify it. You cited an essay to revert[4] in violation of a policy and also removed the suggested merger tag, please restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is verifiability, not ease of access. Go to a library. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is also here, which is a reliable source[5] and again fails verification. Also on Highbeam[6] Please self revert Darkness Shines (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, this verifies it like the blog. [7]. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about? The article is not about the song, it fails verification. And please restore the merge to tag. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are ridiculous. It never was about the song. First you blank every thing and change it to an article about a song and then say it is not one... It was about a series and the song... the protests are verified in any case. Infact this also verifies the protests by the same name which were removed from this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove maintenance tags. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted me fully along with that with the edit summary only about the tag; don't do that again. Fix your edit. Also read the process about merging pages. You've to start a discussion here too for ther merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is on the target article talk page. I asked you several times to restore that tag and you did not. The sources removed have nothing to do with this article, they do not discuss this song. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not restore it as my reasons justified it. I did not see the discussion however. As for vibhijain's revert, he's reverted with an editsummary for the tag only... which means he should restore the rest. And this article is not just about the song as apparent in the history. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is about the song, it was saved at AFD on that basis alone. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the scope to the song only. It is clear as per the AfD that the article is only about the song. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the scope is not just about the song, and the afd does not state that it can not have other details. The article has a broader scope. Also this is your final waring about the revert with an incorrect edit summary about tag where you also reverted content. Fix your edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was a wrong one. You can't remove the maintenance tag. As of the content, you can't just revert someone's edit by just citing an essay. And if you are so confident that the scope is broader, kindly open a RfC for that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see a discussion on this talk page for the merge and I removed it on those basis. Now that I've seen the discussion on target, I'll let that complete. As for the scope, If you've not read the BRD essay, do read it.. it cites certain policies. Editwar is one of them. Removal of sourced content under the edit summary of removing tags is a definite conduct issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its not my headache. You removed the maintenance tag and re-added context over which serious concerns have been raised on the talk page. I don't like to repeat, but citing the B of WP:BRD to make controversial edits, and crying hounding and conduct issue after your edit being reverted, is a bad practice. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is your headache because you reverted it and with an incorrect editsummary. You've still failed to address it. Either address it or self revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are not about the song, the edit states they are. That is WP:OR and has no place in this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @TopGun I have addressed it. There are two reasons for it - You removed a maintenance tag; You added the disputed part, claiming that the scope is larger (although there is no such discussion which says that). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging[edit]

I dispute the truthfulness and neutrality of the article. Experts such has Selig Harrison have noted out that the Kashmir violence is a result of terrorists from Pakistan destabilizing India. Bruce Riedel also points to the same. This article has to be massively reworded. It makes Kashmir violence seem like Indians are persecuting a population just for the heck of it and rock stars are rising against them. 117.199.217.56 (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK " that the song "I Protest" by MC Kash became a protest anthem in Jammu and Kashmir during the 2010 unrest?" is even more nonsense. Most Kashmiris cannot speak English or appreciate Rap/Rock. They have their own culture which is unique and rich. This DYK makes the song seem like an anthem which it is not. It is an independent song with limited sales and recognizability made by a person who has had very little success (One Anu Kapoor song probably sells more than all his music has made combined). MC Kash should not even have a WP article because he is not notable. 117.199.217.56 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article in its earlier form was heavily biased with improper source/ and original research, but the article is not a hoax. I have removed the hoax template and have pointed the problems and removed the biased improperly sourced controversial content.--DBigXray 17:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts are both rigorous and neutral in nature. I applaud your hard work. Well done and all the best to you sir! 117.199.214.130 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death vs Killing[edit]

The deaths were not unintentional. The protests are against the killing of civilians. You should self revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cause of death was Tear gas shelling and shootout on stone pelting and rioting mob. Its Death not Killing.--DBigXray 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The protests are for killings not deaths. And whether or not it is unintentional, it is known as killing. Try a dictionary. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source issues[edit]

[8] TG is for reason known only to himself editwarring this source into the article. It is nice that he assumes I never went and found the article and checked it, so much for assuming good faith. The source used does not mention this song, it is rather about the non notable social networking groups. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link it here, and I'll see what you're on about, the source was added for the violations that are being protested. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it was added for the reasons you say it should not have been added at all. The article is about a song, not the protests. Here is the TOI story which is plastered all over the web, it is not difficult to find.[9][10] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page says, "I protest for being treated as a commodity, for being a slave in the dawn of the 21st century; I protest to be killed for protesting against abuse and basic human rights." This is from the article. This article is not only about the song. Your massive editing changed it's apparent scope. It covers a wider topic... even from the prospect of the song, the further pages and protests are in it's context are covered by RS such as this. That makes them notable.--lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, in case you forgot this article was going to be deleted until it was changed over to an article on a song. The song, such as it is, is the scope of the article, anything regarding to protests belongs in the 2010 Kashmir unrest article. So will you self revert the source which has no place here or do I have to do it? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This does refer to the song and other online protests. It is not just about the song, as mentioned many times above. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source neither mentions Mc Kash nor his song. The article is about a song, as you refuse as usual to listen to reason I will remove the source myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree.. the article does not cover only the song.. it also covers related protests as already in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if you disagree, although hardly surprising. The article is about a song, we have an article already about the protests, the source does not support the content which it is citing as the source does not mention the singer nor the song. So policy would dictate the source be removed, hence I shall remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on I Protest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I Protest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Protest&oldid=1204954246"