Talk:Kamlesh Tiwari

Anti Muslim page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article is heavily biased against Muslims. The investigations are ongoing, no names of accused should be taken in the article per WP:BLP. The mother and the servant has blamed BJP but no mention of of those viewpoints are added in the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I don’t think routine blame game has any place in Wikipedia article. I’ve added only those names who were arrested or detained as part of investigation. Were any of the BJP leaders detained or have they been interrogated by any police? IDK if any of those are. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think last paragraph is unnecessary. In my opinion, I should remove it. What's to say? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 Why shouldnt the opinion of the mother and the servant be added if you are happily adding the blamegames from the police and the government ? This is why i added the biased tag on the article. the tag must not be removed until this has been addressed. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray For your clarification, I had removed those paragraphs and names of accused. Only added information about investigation on murder. But some editor reinstated it. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Harshil169 ok, I have removed the last 2 paras. Hopefully no one should add it back. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Names of Suspect being taken

The names of the suspect/accused must not be added into the article. this is WP:NOTNEWS info that damages a living person.--DBigXrayᗙ 10:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it hereplease do not add it back. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

removed again.-Nizil (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don’t add your own commentary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Tonk111: Refrain from adding your own commentary which are against the WP:NPOV. Comments on someone's sexuality is not their insult as the followers of the religion took on themselves. Please don't add your own original research in the Wikipedia aritcles. None of the reliable sources say thatthis was insult but deteriogating comments against one person. Don't label it as insult, it can be taken as alleged insult and for that already option is available in the article. Writing such heading represents one specific POV. Kindly sell your arguments here first before renaming section as 'Insult of Muhammad'.I'm pinging @DBigXray, DiplomatTesterMan, Wasell, and Lord Bolingbroke: whether it was insult or just comment.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think "Comments on sexuality of Muhammad" was a better header than "Insults of Muhammad", more neutral. (But we aren't here to vote.) Maybe someone can come up with a better section title if they have time. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan:Exactly. I said the same thing to User:Tonk111 but he's not engaging in the consensus building. Comment on someone's sexuality may be an insult for one particular religion but that violates WP:NPOV policy.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 10:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a comment, it's just an insult - "world's first homosexual". Tonk111 (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I changed the section header to "Opinion on Islam"--DBigXrayᗙ 11:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Are opinion on Islam and opinion on Muhammad same thing? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169, It is a broad category. I am sure he had said about islam as well. If you cant find anything in RS on islam, you can rename the section to Opinion on Muhammad. DBigXrayᗙ 11:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Why did you remove my other edit now? Where is the information already in the article regarding the three suspects being named, admitting they did it and police stating why they prima facie did it? The only suspects named are two unrelated Muslim preachers arrested because they made threats against him in the past and were thus also suspected, they never admitted nor have been charged. Tonk111 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Besides you don't need a source for common sense. Was Tiwari arguing that Muhammad was a homosexual? He said it merely after RSS was insulted and no of course by no standard Muhammad was the first homsexual, Homosexuality in Ancient Greece. This wasn't really even a comment about his sexuality. Tonk111 (talk) 10:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Tonk111 As per WP:BLPCRIME you can't take name of accused until convicted. And please don't do original research like you did here. None of the sources cite the fact that it was 'insult', it was just an opinion or comment. Take it as it was reported in sources. Please don't do disruptive editing, involve yourself in consensus building. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not an opinion or comment. It's an insult and disparaging comment that I can say at the least. He's not really arguing he's a homosexual or the first homosexual. Tonk111 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's your source https://www.india.com/news/india/kamlesh-tiwari-remark-against-prophet-muhammad-hindu-outfit-condemns-insulting-statement-express-regret-783242/ If you need more ask me.

I'll remove the names but what you originally removed my reason for was that I added what already present in the article. Tonk111 (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

India.com or India TV are not reliable sources. please present a reliable source.--DBigXrayᗙ 11:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biased (continued) No mention of Yogi Adityanath or revocation of his security

The article has no mention of yogi or revocation of Tiwari's security. This should be added --DBigXrayᗙ 11:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray You too can add the allegations of removing his security here. I found it in India TV's, Zee News's and OPindia's article but it is not reliable in your opinion, thus, I request you to find the mention in highly reliable sources and you can add it here. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Indeed, You or me or someone else has to add it. And this thread is here to point this missing piece of info.
• It is not just my opinion but Wikipedia community opinion after discussion on WP:RSN that they are not reliable. In anycase, whatever info they publish can easily be found in other reliable sources, so why not use the reliable ones instead ? --DBigXrayᗙ 12:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Opinion of Islam

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

I don't agree with your change. It's not an opinion, something like "first homosexual" can't be in seriousness. Also a source does use the word insult to describe his remarks, https://www.india.com/news/india/kamlesh-tiwari-remark-against-prophet-muhammad-hindu-outfit-condemns-insulting-statement-express-regret-783242/

I think a title like "Comments on Muhammad" would be better. Tonk111 (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Opinion on Muhammad should be used then. See my comment above. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I will just refer to stick to source and neutrality here. Tiwari never gave his opinion as a whole on Muhammad and how he lived his life. He just commented on his sexuality, nothing else. So, my heading was making sense. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree too. This wasn't an opinion, but a mere disparaging comment against Muhammad, you can find many sources saying so. I agree Harshil's title is better. Tonk111 (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:CSECTION I have reverted Nizil in favour of the title "Comments on Muhammad" by Tonk111. User:Harshil169 and Tonk, did Tiwari only speak 3-4 words or did he gave a full speech ? I am sure he would have elaborated on Muhammad. In such a case the more widely used section heading is Opinion on Muhammad. He simply expressed his opinion. that is a neutral title. I am not going to fight here to replace comment with opinion, but that is what is widely used. Nizil Shah is way off the mark here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I am OK with revert. -Nizil (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It would still not be proper no matter how long it was. One doesn't need to make it short to make disparaging comments. I don't know ≤how long he spoke against Muhammad or if he spoke anything beyond calling him world's first homosexual. Tonk111 (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I think that you are still not getting my point that what happened in Dec of 2015.

1. Arun Jaitley said that SC should revise their statement on homosexuality. I don't know why Sara removed it from here where it is fully mentioned in 2016 Kaliachak riots and main context
2. Azam said that RSS members are homosexuals (gays), thus, they are not marrying.
3. Tiwari came forward, released letter and said that Muhammad was first homosexual in the world.

That's it. There was not any type of other issue involved here. He never commented (as per RS) about life of Muhammad or gave opinion on those things. He just commented on sexuality of Muhammad and he faced backlash. I hope that clears point why I want title Comment on sexuality of Muhammad.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169: please add your comments chronologically. I removed the Arun Jaitley part because the three cited sources do not link Arun Jaitley to Kamlesh Tiwari ([1], [2], [3]). In fact, two of the three do not even mention Jaitley, while one that does mention Jaitley makes no mention of Tiwari. Linking these is OR of the WP:Synthesis variety. "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research" is one of our core content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch Here are sources of it. One mentioned in the article was already covering that which was removed somehow. [4],[5],[6]. You could have simply demanded more and better sources, if you were not satisfied with existing ones like DBig did it in article with tag. Now, with availability if sources, you can reinstate content. Regards,— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

When did he comment on sexuality of Muhammad? Your own narration of the incident shows it was a retort because of RSS workers being insulted, not a real examination or serious discussion of any sexuality of Muhammad. Comment on Muhammad is a better title. Tonk111 (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Your own narration of the incident shows it was a retort because of RSS workers being insulted, not a real examination or serious discussion of any sexuality of Muhammad. Comment on Muhammad is a better title. No, I never said that RSS workers were insulted because someone called them as gay. Calling someone gay is comment, not insult. It's insult in your opinion as per discussions of talk page. You’re also contradicting your claims on the talk page. In second line, you said it was not real examination of sexuality and thus, comment on sexuality of Muhammad was not good title. But you’re suggesting that comment on Muhammad is good title. Wow, just wow! As if Tiwari did real examination on life and character of Muhammad. Read this essay WP:BECLEAR before giving opinion on talk page and disrupting the Wikipedia by commenting same opinion. Read WP:BLUDGEON. What you’re doing might be considered as WP:DISRUPTSIGNS and you may be blocked on Wikipedia for disrupting process and not trying to reach on consensus. Regards, — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course it was an insult, did you think Azam Khan was actually suggesting they were or he examined their profiles? Because RSS men were called gay, Tiwari made the remark against Muhammad isn't it? You yourself accept that Tiwari didn't do any real examination on Muhammad's sexuality, yet you want to add it as "comment on sexuality". I have right to edit something I see wrong, but not edit war for it. I am peacefully talking, don't threaten me. Tonk111 (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Even after reaching on consensus with other editors like diplomat, Sarah Welch, you’re just starting your opinion that it was an insult as you did in starting of thread. Read WP:HEAR. I don’t know how to reach with consensus with you, I’m just stopping here and will take this discussion to administrator Noticeboard. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I am not adding it into the article that it was an insult. I only used the word insult here. Tonk111 (talk) 08:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That said I am not against the consenus. Derogatory remarks or simply comment wpuld be better. Read this https://www.news18.com/news/politics/kamlesh-tiwari-murder-wife-blames-maulanas-for-hindu-leaders-death-cops-call-it-purely-criminal-2351373.html Do you see at any source that Azam Khan or Kamlesh Tiwari were exmanining or disputing anyone's sexuality in actual? Titles like "Comment on sexuality" are wrong. Tonk111 (talk) 08:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169: Thanks for the new links you provided. They mention Arun Jaitley's support for the rights of homosexual community. They also mention Azam Khan's statement, but the Khan statement does not mention Jaitley. Nor does it link Arun Jaitley to Kamlesh Tiwari. The other source only states "Khan's statement came after", nothing more. If you insist, we can add this chronology, but how is Jaitley's statement or that chronology relevant to the biography of Tiwari? The history of rulings of the Supreme Court of India on LGBT rights, Arun Jaitley's related support for human rights, how or whether Khan interpreted Jaitley's statement as linked somehow to RSS, etc etc seems WP:Undue in this biographical article on Kamlesh Tiwari. Yes, Jaitley-Khan-etc views of the different sides may better fit in LGBT rights in India or another, particularly if sourced from peer-reviewed sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I think that it provides whole picture that why Azam and Tiwari were giving derogatorily comments. But your point also makes sense. Let's keep give small weightage (not as previous one) to Jaitley's comment before of Azam Khan's and change the title to comment on sexuality of Muhammad when the whole episode is based on just sexuality of Muhammad, not on his other things or else. I'm leaving this for you and will CE it. Thanks and regards. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:14, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer we retitle that section to "Controversy and arrest", since that would bring the section's focus on Tiwari's bio. Muhammad, or Muhammad's sexuality, is neither important here nor the focus of this article. I saw the discussion above earlier, and I am fine leaving the subtitle as "Comment on Muhammad". But your suggestion "Comment on sexuality of Muhammad" – or another variant – leans too far to one side, just like subtitles such as "Challenging Azam Khan's mockery of Hindus", or "Standing up for RSS", or "Retaliating against the baseless sexual accusations against Hindu nationalists" would lean too far to the other side. We should strive for neutral subtitles when and where possible, particularly in sensitive articles such as this. I will add a note on the Jaitley chronology. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead

Harshil169: your edit summary makes no sense and does not conform to our WP:Lead guidelines. The lead is supposed to be "a concise overview " and "a summary of an article's most important contents". That is what this version's lead is. Please discuss any concerns you have. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)