This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Mentioning the exact slogans they chanted give additional context to the reader about the intentions of the perpetrators. It is necessary to maintain a fair point of view. It has been confirmed by various media outlets and in the video itself it can be clearly heard. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Hinduism is responsible for the killing of dreaded mafia don Atiq Ahmed? Even though both perpetrators clearly reveal that they did it to attain fame? And this is coming from the same wikipedia, that erases islamic intentions of terrorists let alone "Allahu Akbar" which is infact been used to commit genocides and genocidal rapes since the 7th century? What is "fair" about selective polemical vilification of a vulnerable indigneous,pagan and unorganized faith? Confirmation by various media outlets does not mean it is objective. How many media outlets bluntly report on usage of Allahu Akbar usage during terrorist attacks. Since we are dealing with religious sloganeering. It seems Hindu don't have victimhood privileges.
The bot has put up a banner saying 'the article may be published from a fan point of view". You need to check the current version again and remove the lines which may seem that they were written by a fan point of view 2405:201:6019:603B:79B9:F46A:6962:5FE7 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the "death" section, the phrase "they chanted slogans" instead of "chanted Jai Shree Ram" should be enough, as the latter sounds very biased. Also taking a dig at he being surrounded by police isn't a professional way of presenting thing on a public encyclopedia 2405:201:4019:3874:ECFB:1304:9526:48BB (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Telling the exact slogans they chanted is not bias. It gives additional context and should be added. I propose that the previous use of this slogan by nationalists as a battle cry also be mentioned.
Also, it is a fact that they were surrounded by the police and one of the major highlights of this case. How can people in custody under the police be shot? Removing this highlight would be disingenuous. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will lead to communal disharmony is not a valid reason to remove facts from the article. This is an informative article not a government announcement. Facts must be stated. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What is the reason for Wikipedia's extremely apologetic stance towards islamic terrorism and Allahu Akbar or anything critical of Islam? Jonathankent673 (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have again restored this statement, which was removed with the edit summary "Trying to invoke communal violence. No religion should be targeted during neutral writing. An FIR might be logged against that person if trying to involve any communal writing". Either it happened (and is reliably sourced), or it did not (or is not). Wikipedia is not censored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into that soon but to what extent we can work with that considering those are not even charges, just allegations, is debatable. >>> Extorc.talk05:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lion has become a victim of the hostility of the government
Since two murders evidently occurred, shouldn't "murder" be changed to "murders" in: "The three perpetrators had posed as media personnel and did not attempt to escape after committing the murder, instead surrendering..."?
Also would changing "The brothers were surrounded by police personnel at the time of the shooting." to "The brothers were surrounded by police and media personnel at the time of the shooting." be more accurate and better regarded by most people? I didn't make the changes but suggest they be considered by more informed Wikipedians. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it makes sense to have these as separate sections, given they happened simultaneously. It makes the article weirdly unchronological and separates events that are related to each other, like the Raju Pal murder and Ahmed's subsequent election contended against Raju Pal's wife. Thoughts? Wracking💬20:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mixmon (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
