Talk:2018 Bhima Koregaon violence/Archive 1

Archive 1

In English please

Parts of this article are not grammatical or incomprehensible to non Indians:" refused to constitute an SIT"

Why does Supreme Court arrest or bail individuals? What is SIT? Why do the parties clash over a 200 year old affair? Etc. Zezen (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I have expanded the SIT acronym ("special investigation team").
• The Supreme Court does not arrest people, but it has ordered that they be placed under 'house arrest', which is less onerous than being taken to prison/police custody.
• The two-hundred old affair was a battle between upper caste groups (mainly Brahmins) and the lower caste groups (Mahars) in the British army. The British are gone, but the caste groups are still here and so are their frictions. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: agreed!

Request to resolve edit warring

@Azuredivay: Please feel free to discuss changes on this talk page before undoing content/references that have been put up. The edits that you are making are POV rather than from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which is required of a Wikipedia article. Vikram Vincent 15:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pastor vs Priest

Stan Swamy is a Roman Catholic priest of the Jesuit order. Please check references. Calling him a pastor is not appropriate. Vikram Vincent 07:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Azuredivay: please feel to discuss if you object. Vikram Vincent 07:39, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Loss

Maha shutdown incurs Rs 2000 cr loss to transport sector --Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 15:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bongan:This is a dead link. What point was it supposed to support? Vikram Vincent 07:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality and other issues

Appears that the article needs a rewrite to improve readability. Too many disconnected sentences which lack flow. The neutrality of the claims are also suspect cause contending claims are not adequately represented. Will need to read up the references and see if claims and references match. Plus, edit warring was present. Need to build consensus. Vikram Vincent 07:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Vikram Vincent hey, the current version of the article actually seems more messed up than the past, please refer to this version here and let me know yours thoughts. The current version breaks down the entire timeline of events, which is significant to the case, and over that it removes important little details.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: I see what you are saying.. I was redrafting a large chunk offline. Else will revert to your version Thanks! Vikram Vincent 18:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: Yes please, take necessary actions to address the issue. If you have any other issues with neutrality and citations, please feel free to discuss it here!

Ashlesh007 (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: Looking at the page after a night of good sleep, are you referring to the timeline in the format of bullet points being better than paragraphed text? There seem to be several intermediate events that took place between the bulleted points which may be better represented as paragraphs. Improves sentence flow. Vikram Vincent 03:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: the new sectioning improves readability by merging and reordering sections. In the diff you shared, could you point to any specific aspect that has been broken save the bulleting? Thanks Vikram Vincent 03:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: The bullet points summarize significant events in the timeline, giving a better understanding as to what happened and how it happened, plus the new sectioning does not improve readability, over that it breaks down the timeline, if you look at the points where it talks about the case being taken over by NIA, and the intent of Maha Gov of starting an SIT, and how the two events are linked to each other, with the added information of change in the government. Plus the "Independent Think tank" section totally breaks down the timeline more, since it is significant that, that event is described with respect to the timeline because that report was the primary source used by the then state government to entirely change the narrative of the case shifting it from the original accused to the organizers. The newer edits also remove the information that, the think tank in question is backed by RSS, a pressure group and ideological parent to the ruling dispensation. These are significant details that define the case, and it makes more sense when you put them up in a timeline of that sorts.The only issue with the version I linked was that the sub-section of "Arrests" was another time-line in its own.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: Thanks for taking the time to reply in-depth. 1. W.R.T. the bullet points I have no specific inclination. Let me organise the text a bit more as I was in the process of reading all the references and making notes. Will then restore the bulleted timeline but with more complete info. Hope that is ok? 2. I came across articles that there were other independent studies and reports being done. See, this and this among others. These fact finding teams are not related to the police investigation. That is why a section for independent reports were created and moved to the end of the page. This would allow any editor to add all reports in a balanced way as and when they are released. 3. You will note that I have removed names of victims and left only age-gender and context wherein readers may look up the references for more info. 4.Can you please check if my edits have removed any data on RSS. I can see it in the first line of the independent report section. 5. Plus, I removed POV and cruft that sounded like a masala magazine. Will get back to the article hopefully this weekend. Best! Vikram Vincent 08:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: 1- sure that works out. 2- yes there must be a lot of independent studies, my intent was to point out that the study in question by FINS was the primary source that was used to change the entire direction of the case, giving it more significance, plus given the context of the think tank and its relation to the ruling dispensation, it makes more sense for that to be included up in the timeline, but as you mentioned you'd be restoring it in future edits, so that's fine. 4 - my bad, I must have gotten it confused with some old edit versions. Thanks for all your work on the article, let me know if you need any help from my side.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: would be great if you could look through the other reports and posit them in relation to the claims being made by FINS. Bring balance to the Force ;-) Open task Vikram Vincent 09:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: yes I will go through them in the coming week and make necessary edits.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: quick clarification - Irrespective of the affiliation of individuals, FINS is not an official investigative agency under the Constitution and hence cannot be considered as such. Whether the police have relied on their report or others is not relevant as the police have freedom within their domain and any claims they make in the chargesheet will be tested during trial. Thus, linking FINS within the official timeline is not appropriate and hence the need for a separate section for independent reports. Thanks Vikram Vincent 11:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: Sure, it is not an official agency, nor is it under the Indian Constitution, but that doesn't lessen or increase it's relevance with respect to this particular subject. If you have followed the case from the beginning, you'd notice that the prime accused were Milind Ekbote and Sambhaji Bhide, who were being charged and arrested by Pune Police, until the development of the FINS report by the think-tank affiliated to the RSS, which changed the total direction of the case. A total change in the direction of the case, is a pretty important detail with respect to the subject of the article, and the FINS report being the reason behind it makes it relevant enough to be included in the timeline. Sure the Pune Police is free to rely on any reports, and their claims will be tested in a trail, but again, context, Pune Police in 2018, was under a BJP( RSS affiliated political party) rule. That makes it more relevant to the timeline. In this case, the FINS report is not some random report on the internet since it has had great impact on the direction of the case which defines its relevance. So the point of it being appropriate or inappropriate doesn't arise, since it's just plain unfolding of events significant to the case.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: Are there any reliable secondary sources to substantiate the claim "..which changed the total direction of the case"? Let us not use Wikipedia to further speculations. Vikram Vincent 16:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: I understand Wikipedia should not be used to further speculations, there are countless news articles which state things along the same lines. Right after the 2018 Violence, as I mentioned the accused were Sambhaji Bhide and Milind Ekbote, whom the FINS absolved in their report. Pune Police were investigating Bhide and Ekbote well into March 2018, until the FINS report came out. And a month later Police totally gave up on them and instead started building a chargesheet and arresting activists and organizers of the event. Check the articles here, and here

Ashlesh007 (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: The Scroll article says, "The report pinned the blame for the violence on a Maoist conspiracy – a conclusion that bears striking resemblance to the claims the Pune police has subsequently made in court" and the Hindustan Times says that FINS shared their report with the police. I think that is the most that can be said. Feel free to paraphrase and cite that. The rest is speculation. Vikram Vincent 03:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: I wasn't insisting on adding the text speculating the resemblance, my original intent was to keep the mention and summary of the Report, in the timeline, like it was in the earlier version I had linked above, which made no speculations, or talked about resemblance, and merely stated the report. And the fact that 1- there is a striking resemblance between the claims of Pune Police and the report, and 2 - the fact that FINS stated they don't submit their reports until they are asked for, and 3- that they did submit the report to many levels of authorities from state to center, meaning they were asked to submit the report. 4- the ideological and political connection between the government and the authors of the report,and 5 - the report preceded the changes in the direction of the case, is why I insist on having the mention of the report in the timeline rather than in the Independent sections report because unlike the other reports, this is more significant given the reasons. So to summarize, I just expect to mention the report and it absolving the original accused and instead putting the spot light on ultra-left in the timeline. Thats it.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ashlesh007: I have made additions to the section on independent reports to balance the views. I don't think it fits into the other timeline you were mentioning. Do have a look at diffs to check other changes I have incorporated to account for our discussion. Unless there are any major issues remaining, I'll close this discussion and work on the neutrality issues on other parts of the article. Best! Vikram Vincent 09:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Vincentvikram: I am sorry, I am still not convinced as to why it does not fit into the timeline. The timeline is a summary of the flow of the case and its aftermath, a summary incorporates significant and relevant details to the case, I have presented many reasons in the replies above as to why I think the addition is significant, on the other hand, the only argument that you have presented is that the FINS is not a constitutional body. There is no fixed rule suggesting that only government or constitutional bodies can be added up in the timeline, on the contrary it makes sense to incorporate Significant developments and events irrespective of anything. And as I said time and time again, the FINS report is significant and not some random thing. So a mere mention of the report's existence( given its significance to the case) is what I insist upon. I see no reason as to why it can't fit. The only problem we have here is the placement of the piece of information, and not the piece of information, I feel it is important enough to be included in the timeline, and you feel it should be contained with the others reports in a new section. I have pointed out why and how the FINS report is different from those other reports. Please point out if my argument sounds irrational or biased, and why. Sorry for dragging this thing so far. And thank you for being so patience about it and having this long discussion.

Ashlesh007 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources cited in this column are heavily biased and more of tabloids than actual newspapers. What's the general criteria to accept a source? Not everything on the internet written by self proclaimed "journalists" can be cited as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu487 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Raghu487 sources are per WP:RS. If you have specific concerns do share. Vikram Vincent 05:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Independent reports

None of the independent reports seems to be particularly independent. We need to pull out who is who as they all seem to be political actors. Secretlondon (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Secretlondon, we do. From what I understand, there has been a lot of independent reporting around this incident and its repercussions which are largely not used in the article. I'll see what I can gather on this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)