Talk:2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi

Number of attendees

This source from 31st March claims that "Roughly 1,900 Indians took part in this event", whereas all newer sources put the estimated number above 9,000 [1]. Tamil Nadu alone had 1,500+ attendees out of which 364 have tested positive. Telangana had 1,200 attendees and Karnataka had about 1,500 at the event. 117.213.160.58 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The first source, The Hindu, is not saying 9,000 people attended the congregations. That is the number of people quarantined. The remaining state police numbers need to be taken with a pinch of salt. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that these are state police numbers? These numbers are confirmed by the respective state health departments/health ministers. Maharashtra has traced 1300 attendees from the state. Gujarat says it had 1500 people at the congregation. Even 9000 is starting to look like an underestimate. 117.206.90.94 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:OR and stick to sources. Your first source above says:

Meanwhile, Union home ministry has said that about 9,000 Tablighi Jamaat members and their primary contacts have been quarantined till now across the country in view of the coronavirus infection.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

How about this source which says "Roughly, 9,000 members of the Jamaat, who had attended a three-day religious meet at the Tablighi Jamaat headquarters in Nizamuddin, are being traced by Indian authorities" Does this qualify as OR too? 117.206.90.94 (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That is an opinion column. And the author gives no indication of where the information comes from. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Surely this one must be good enough? It cites "tally of numbers released by 25 states and union territories" as the source. 117.206.90.94 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for hunting for the sources. I will adjust the text to take this into account. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my agreement to the 9,000 figure because it is reliably learnt that the Nizamuddin Markaz Mosque houses only 2,000 people. The 2,000 figure is also consistent with loads of other sources. It looks like the Hindustan Times misinterpreted the information it got. There is loads of fake information or misinformation on this subject. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources

author	publication	date	number left	number present	total number	source	citation
Saurabh Trivedi	The Hindu	30 March			8000	police officer
Home Ministry	Press Inf. Bureau	31 March	2100	1500
PTI	India Today	31 March		1830		Delhi government
	India TV	31 March		1033	~ 2000	Delhi health minister
	The Hindu	1 April		2631		evacuated, typo?
Anonna Dutt	Hindustan Times	1 April			8000	estimated
Uday Mahurkar	India Today	1 April	1000	1400	2400
	India Today Web desk	1 April		2361		Delhi deputy CM
	India Today Web Desk	2 April			7000	5000 quarantined
correspondent	Hind. Times	2 April			8500	tally
Reuters	New York Times	2 April	2900	1750	9000?	MoHFW
Joanna Slater	Washington Post	3 April		2300

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC) updated Kautilya3 (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Please go through the article once again.

Here many fake news are also mentioned in order to denigrate a perticular community..... This is happening only in India by some Islam haters. Busy in spreading islamophobia in India.... I request to please remove this article as it spreads misinformation and hate among people for a perticular community. Khanfurqankhan (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR information. If there is any issue with the content on the page, please feel free to raise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 That's why the article was deleted, despite the consensus being in favor of keep? 🤡🌏 2601:644:8B00:DEF0:683E:1242:B45C:A53D (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The decision to delete was amended to keep. In any case, I have worked on removing the Islamophobia in the article, and just stuck to the facts. If there is any specific line that bothers you, please point it out. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparing Tabligh cases to the general pool

I propose that we should avoid language that compares the Tabligh cases to the general cases, as in, e.g., "4,291 out of 14,378 confirmed cases". The reason is that cases are determined by testing, and we don't know what testing strategies have been used. For the Tabligh cases, we know. All the people that went to the Nizamuddin Markaz or came in contact with such people have been tested. Secondary and tertiary contacts might have also been tested. This is called contact tracing.

For the general population, we have no information, we have no idea who has been tested. The government has not published any testing strategy as far as I know. But I can hazard a guess that only the people that got seriously sick and went to the hospitals were tested if the doctors determined that they were possible COVID cases.

So by comparing the former with the latter, we are comparing apples and oranges.

In fact if we look at the first chart in COVID-19 in India#Statistics, we see that the total cases and active cases start seriously deviating from each other only after 5 April. Prior to that a "case" was an active case. But many of these 4,291 cases obtained by contact tracing are inactive cases, whereas in the general pool there are practically no inactive cases. This makes the comparisons of the above kind highly misleading. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we change the figures on the cases linked to Jamaat

The first line of article says there are 1000+ cases. Now it's confirmed we have more than 4291 cases. Can we update it?

This article mentions the official numbers given out in a press-briefing by Joint Secretary in the Health Ministry Lav Agarwal.

The video of the said press-briefing. He mentions on this subject from 2:31 to 3:50.

4291 cases are found linked to Nizamuddin Markaz cluster. Cases have been found related to this cluster in 23 states and UTs. After that, he provided some state-wise data related to this cluster.

Amazingcaptain (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Why is the article articulated as if whitewashing of the incident. There are whole lot of FIRs registered including violence against doctors, police, nudity and spitting on people directly or indirectly related to the congregation attendees. Is Wikipedia being run for white washing. I didn’t see such considered while vilifying the Delhi riot 2020 and news papers were treated as judges. Oxymoronoridiot (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's difficult to respond to. Unless you are able to speak in greater detail, I'm not sure there is much use in having this conversation. We follow the due weight of a subject, which is decided by consensus of contributors. But regardless, we expect especially high-quality sources for any content added to this article. El_C 23:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Oxymoronoridiot. The article was not edited for more than a week, so it is not up to date. Like El C said, if you have some substantial stuff to add, which is covered in reliable sources, then kindly post it here. Some editor will add it in the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello usernamekiran. Can we add a section that has all the details about all the FIRs lodged related to people of this event and the action taken by the authorities regarding this? In that section we can mention about the Jamaat chief being booked for culpable homicide and can also mention about the other events mentioned by Oxymoronoridiot if we find reliable sources.

Probably not. The one on Maulana Saad can be covered, but the charges and legalities will need to be discussed as per reliable sources, e.g.,

• Faizan Mustafa, The Coronavirus Spread and the Criminal Liability of the Tablighi Jamaat, The Wire, 16 April 2020.

Please note that Wikipedia will never be a lynch mob. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what's being implied here. How is posting actual data from reliable sources equal to Wikipedia being lynch mob? -- Amazingcaptain (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am hard put to find anything "reliable" in the so-called reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section required?

Given that the article focuses on an Islamic event, which also mentions criticisms directed at the group that organized it, perhaps for balance, there needs to be a section on criticisms, not just on the group, but also on government response, other politicians/groups that seek to stoke communal tensions, and whether the cases reported have been skewed by the focus on testing the attendees of the event. Hzh (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• Agree : Criticism of both kinds may manage the balance. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 15:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

In general, it's better to try not to separate criticism to it's own section, such sections tend to become shit-magnets. Some guidance at Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There is now a section on Government efforts and lapses. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It may be better not to use a word like "lapses" which implies judgment on what they did. Government "action" or "response" may be sufficient. Hzh (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Hzh. If anything, it contradicts the majority viewpoint that India's preemptive and proactive response to the outbreak has generally received praise. M4DU7 (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: The question remains on how to introduce some of the things that happened, for example the conspiracy theories [2], inflammatory words used by politicians, or the "divisive rhetoric" of the media [3][4], or views of scientists who condemned attempts to "communalize the pandemic" [5]. Maybe we can have a misinformation section. Hzh (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

For the time being, my priority is to provide accuarate information. Finger pointing can wait. Or any of you can add sections on those aspects if you are ready to do so.

I do not share the confidence that M4DU7 has about the government's efficacy. If we believe that the Centre informed the "states" on 21 March, it took 9 days for the Delhi government to shut down the Markaz. Once that was done, some 9,000 people were apparently quarantined throughout the country in 3 days. Yup, the latter part is pretty impressive. But the earlier part is clearly symbolic of a broken government. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Government response

M4DU7, Since there is an active thread on this issue, it is best to discuss the issues instead of making contentious edits.

• On the first point, I find it particularly baffling that you add a source of your own, and then add a "not in source" tag to it. What gives?

I believe the 13 March order wasn't well-publicised because there are loads of sources on the Tabligh event that don't mention it. They only mention the 16 March order. I can give a list below if necessary. My source said it was "vaguely worded". Perhaps. But its relevance to the Tablighi Markaz wasn't clear. Neither was the Delhi government able to enforce it. The police didn't lift an arm. Do you have a source that gives the reaction of the Delhi Police or the Union Home ministry stating why they did not enforce the 13 March order? The Police are right next door to the Markaz! [6] And, can you provide a diff for the 13 March order on the COVID-19 in India page?

• On your second point, the source says Health Ministry officials did not respond to messages. What more do you want? The SOS from J&K was very specific and pin-pointed. You would expect that the Health Ministry would have immediately despatched a task force to the Markaz to investigate. But nothing of the sort happened. "Did not act" is a very mild description of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of sources that make no mention of the 13 March order.

• Joanna Slater, Niha Masih, Irfan Shams, India confronts its first virus 'super-spreader,' a Muslim missionary group, Washington Post, 3 April 2020.
• Questions Remain About How Delhi's Nizamuddin Became a Coronavirus Hotspot, The Wire, 31 March 2020.
• Mirza Arif Beg, Communal Corona? Is It Justified To Blame Tablighi Jamaat For Nizamuddin Outbreak?, Outlook, 31 March 2020.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Pinging M4DU7. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not add that Outlook citation. I had added a "citation needed" tag after which user Aaqib replaced the "citation needed" tag with that source. I read the cited article and did not find anything pertaining to that order, which is why I marked it as "not in source".

That many sources on Tablighi event don't mention it does not make the order itself "not well-publicised". I have been following the coronavirus outbreak right from the beginning, and, find that assertion incorrect, considering you have failed to present a source that actually says so. In fact, I am sure that it was very well publicised as Delhi was one of the first governments to invoke the Epidemic Act and impose restrictions of any kind. I found a couple of sources from my browser history: [7] [8]. For what it's worth, a day before this ban, Kejriwal and Modi had appealed people to avoid large gatherings.

It is not clear what "Health Ministry did not respond to messages" means in that context and has probably been misinterpreted by you. For all we know, it might mean that the Health Ministry did not respond to the messages of the The Hindu journalist who perhaps wanted a statement. Even if it means what you think it means, I don't see how "Health Ministry did not respond to messages" is remotely the same as "Health Ministry officials did not act on these alerts".

My overall impression on the whole section is that it reads like a social media rant about the government's alleged inaction and is trying to make a scapegoat of the officials. No doubt they could have done some things differently, in hindsight, but this kind of writing is just unbalanced POV and frankly not very encyclopaedic. M4DU7 (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say the fact that certain gripes appear on social media doesn't make them automatically invalid. The same grips are found in reliable sources too.

Your edit summary last night said, "Really? I remember adding this announcement to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India on the day it was announced". I couldn't find any mention of it on the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India page. Can you provide a diff? The two links you provide above actually illustrate the point. The first link used "IPL" in its headline, which was typical of all the headlines that day. Hindustan Times was one of the few that went beyond IPL and mentioned "big events". (But even that doesn't really clarify, because one would tend to interpret "big events" as "as big as IPL"). The order was badly worded. Whether the Delhi government made any other efforts at effective communication is not known to me.

On the second issue, we only have a claim by the Union Home Ministry that the sent notifications on 21 March. But the Delhi government said it received "tips" the following week. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Following sentences in the section Government Response are either not true or needs to be analysed

1. "13 March order by Delhi Govt on prohibiting gatherings does not seem to have well publicised." This statement is not true. It was a well publicised order and adapted by range of public and private institutions. All schools, colleges, Cinema halls and IPL were closed by then already. Social distancing and restriction of gathering procedures were already adapted not only in Delhi but also in many states across nation by closing down schools.IndiaTodayEconomicTimes
2. "As of 13 March the central government had maintained that there was no health emergency in the country. There were no restrictions on gatherings until this date". This is equating one sentence of health ministry to another conclusion on gathering. Neither state nor central Govt had mentioned that gathering can go on in that statement. Health ministry had just said that there is no Health Emergency and so there is no need of panic. At that time, there were only 81 cases from across country. This statement does not meant that any gathering can go on or no need of Quarantine. Home Quarantine was mandated already and Social distancing measures were taken as discussed previously.
3. "A second order was issued on 16 March, banning all gatherings over 50 people. The government also ordered the closure of gyms, clubs and spas. But it was not until 24 March that the Delhi Police sought the closure of the Nizamuddin Markaz". The order of 16th March was issued and publicised through press to inform organisations. It was duly followed by concerned organisation. Police did not went to every gathering or places to seeking their closure. According this reportHT, the Markaz leadership resisted evacuation efforts from 21 to 27 March. Even a notice was given on 23 March.
4. "Home quarantine for international arrivals was not mandated until 17 March." Government had already mandated 14 days home quarantine for those who arrived February 15 onwards from Covid-19 affected nations:China Italy, Iran, Republic of Korea, France, Spain and German.NDTV This Home Quarantine mandate was later expanded to all nations on 17 March. So this statement is not true to generalise as "International arrivals not mandated until 17 March. A tentative list of foreign delegates to this event includes the France and Iran who were asked for Home Quarantine in the initial statement.ANI
5. On lack of co-ordination between state and central Government, since the beginning of Corona spread in India many departments from state and central Government are working closely. This is evident in many such actions. One example related to this hotspot, when an initial cases was found in Telangana and later in Tamil Nadu and Jammu and Kashmir, Union Home Minister traced it to back to the Markaz and notified all state Governments to trace those who attended in the event. Many similar collaborative tasks carried out demonstrates co-ordination: screening at airports, enforcing Quarantine. So this sentence may not be relevant here.XGammaRay (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The objective of the narrative of this section is to clarify the situation at the time the events were organised, which the general newspapers have neglected to do and the right wing media have turned a completely blind eye to, both giving rise to misgivings and misapprehension regarding the culpability of TJ. If you read good quality neutral sources, they do point out all these facts.

* Re 1, I have started a separate section on the 13 March below. I have also checked the news coverage on 13 March. With the exception of the Hindustan Times, all of them interpreted it as a ban on sports gatherings.

* Re 2, I have added a source that says the Delhi government order itself came too late. In fact, it is worse, because the superspreader meeting happened during 8-10, long before any government initiatives. Since that point, the Markaz building itself became a COVID hotspot. It should have been isolated as soon as the Telangana infections came to light (which was on either 16 or 18 March, depending on the source), i.e., before the Janata Curfew. The responsibility for this rests with the BJP government because the Delhi Police is under its control. Ajit Doval, who is on a "first name basis" with all the ulema, could have been dispatched on that day itself. The Delhi government had already banned gatherings, and the law and order is not its function. It is exercised by the Union Home Ministry via the Lieutenant Governor.

* Re 3, in a normal state (other than a Delhi-like UT), the government would have been able to dispatch the police to enforce the orders. Not in Delhi. The source you pulled is about something else. It says that the Markaz resisted the evacuation of the building. But blocking meetings would have been a normal function of the police, for which the Markaz could not have objected. A second meeting started on 15 March and a third meeting on 22 March. Neither of these has been blocked. Nor have they been reported by the mainstream press (whose information mainly coming from the Centre and the Delhi Police).

* Re 4, the NDTV summary that you have pulled is a vague summary and does not fit the bill. The COVID-19 in India#January–February section does not mention anything of this kind. Moreover, home quarantine is specified for Indians returning from abroad, not for foreign travellers. For the latter, the government itself has to quarantine them or send them back, because they have no "home" in India.

* Re 5, the statement that the Centre had "notified all the state governments" sounds to silly to even warrant any comment. We are talking about Delhi, under the very nose of the Central government, which is still called a "Union Territory"! It needed to notify itself to shut down the Tablighi Jamaat. For other states, yes, it had to notify, but for Delhi it had to act. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is an interesting data point. 12 Indonesians (actually 6 couples) came to India on 29 February, even before the Malaysian event. They went to the Delhi Markaz and then stayed in Mumbai since 7 March. This is long before any government measures were even contemplated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

References

13 March order

The order was so badly-worded that the Deputy Chief Minister himself had no clue what it had ordered. "Sports sector ki jo bhi seminar, conferences hain wo shut kiya jayega".[9]. The Hindu reported it exactly like that. This was the key order. The Tablighi Andhra Pradesh jod started soon after this. The Hazrat Nizamuddin Police Station, the next door neighbour of Tablighi Jamaat made no effort to stop it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

FYI, this page is mentioned at Wikipedia's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It does seem like this article could be a subsection of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. YgFZAcpJUJ (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it looks less like that now. I have a knee-jerk reaction in the WP:NAVEL direction on content like this, but WP:GNG doesn't seem to be a problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does the first line say there are 1000+ cases now that we have new information

Can we change the first line to 4000+ cases now that we have got an update on it?

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

Hi, In Aftermath & Action section of the article, the article reads

"According to reports, around 160 attendees who were quarantined at a railway facility in Delhi "misbehaved" and "spat on" doctors and healthcare personnel who were attending to them. They also allegedly raised objection to the food served and roamed around the facility in violation of the norms of the isolation ward.[55] Attendees quarantined at a facility in Ghaziabad reportedly roamed around naked in the facility and made lewd comments and directed vulgar signs at the nurses.[56][57] Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath condemned the actions, called the patients "enemies of humanity" and invoked the National Security Act against them.[58] In Bihar, stones were pelted at police officers who had gone for tracking Tablighi Jamaat attendees.[59]"

But It needs to be updated as various media houses have called it an hoax. As the subject here can be used to fuel the fire, I request admins to look into this at the earliest.

Sources:
1. The Logical Indian: News On Tablighi Jamaat Patient Misbehaving, Spitting On Doctors Is Fake: AIIMS Raipur
2. Alt News: India TV uses 2017 video to falsely claim Islamic preacher provoked Jamaatis to ‘spit’
3. BBC: Coronavirus: India doctors 'spat at and attacked'
4. Reports of Tablighi Patient ‘Spitting’ On Doctors Untrue: Raipur AIIMS Clarifies
Please do the needful. thanks. SAMillYOU (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC) SAMillYOU (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The sources you gave appear to be referring to different events, so unless you can give sources that specifically contradict the events mentioned in the article, I think it would be hard to say that they are hoaxes. Hzh (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim 22:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Reconciliation Efforts

Can this section be added after the members have actually donated their plasma and not based on speculation of a future event? Vrishabh22 (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

CNN

Maybe good for something, here or in a related article: India's Muslims feel targeted by rumors they're spreading Covid-19 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable sources - Page tag

Many local sources of poor quality have been used, which may lead to unreliability of the reported facts. Even ToI has been listed as unreliable for current affairs by WP:RSN and I noticed Twitter being cited in some places while primary sources (such as govt websites) being cited in others. SerChevalerie (talk)

I don't know about the others but I would like to keep the Facebook page that seem to have removed because it lists the events being organised at the Markaz. I have cross-checked them with other sources including the website of the Markaz. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, to provide a little bit more clarity, could you link to the exact post(s), or better yet, list them in the "External links" section? SerChevalerie (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. Here is the Facebook page:

• Nizamuddin Ijtema, Facebook page, retrieved 19 April 2020.

It just lists a whole bunch of announcements that one can scroll through. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Can list out specific posts like this one of the Andhra Pradesh Jod. However, for a high traffic and controversial article such as this one, we must try to restrict ourselves to high-quality third-party RS only. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That link gave me an error. But in any case, what is being cited is not only the presence of events at certain times, but also the absence of events at other times. So the entire pages/websites are part of the citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to say there are no "high-quality" third-party RS at this time. The Indian newspapers are operating under a lockdown, and they have all been manipulated to print the government briefings without asking any tough questions. [10] Almost all of them write of a "Tablighi Jamaat event" or "congregation" "earlier this month". Nobody has even noticed that there were several events, and that the dates of those events are entirely different from what they have been fed. (I went digging because what they were writing contradicted information from Barbara Metcalf. It took only a few google searches to find the primary sources and the "high-quality" sources stand exposed.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, noted but the tag of "unreliable sources" will still remain, due to the other sources used. I'm curious as to why you have deleted the "access-date" parameter from all the sources cited. The parameter gives a good idea of when the link was last accessed, which helps gain a better idea when the sources are dead and need to be archived. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi SerChevalerie, the "access-date" parameter is only needed for web sites that can possibly change. It is not needed for news reports. It is unnecessary cognitive load to see two dates in a citation and trying to figure out which is which. On another note, you need to be using dmy dates with the IAbot. I believe there is a setting for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Goswami666, please see this discussion. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the individual primary sources have been tagged, can consider this issue to be resolved. We still need to find secondary RS, though. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

There's no mention of "tourist visa"

Article does not state, members of Tabligi used "Tourist visa" for religious purpose. RoySmiththree (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

RoySmiththree, please see the section on "Aftermath" -> "Legal action" which states that The Ministry of Home Affairs, on 14 April, blacklisted and cancelled the tourist visas of around 960 foreign Tablighi Jamaat members for violating visa norms by entering India with a tourist visa but indulging illegally in missionary work in India. On these charges, Patna Police arrested 28 preachers, 17 of whom were foreigners. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Vasai vs Nizamuddin

I noticed that somebody added a political comment from a Maharashtra politician beating their own drum. This is a red herring. At Vasai, there was planned to be held an ijtema, which is a huge gathering. It is generally held in public grounds somewhere, for which they of course need government permission. The Nizamuddin gatherings were more like meetings, which are held in their own building. They don't need any permissions for that.

Moreover, the Maharashtra politicians haven't told us that they only asked the Vasai ijtema to be postponed, by about a month. Tablighi Jamaat itself cancelled the event later on when they realized that things were getting worse.

We are obviously not going to give space to the Maharashtra politicians to take pot shots at Delhi. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

The article pointed out that " Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath condemned the actions and invoked the National Security Act against them." but I think he forgot to mention that the action was stone pleating on the health care workers and severely injuring one doctor. ToyaScorpion (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Amkgp 💬 07:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected move request to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi on 27 August 2020

As this page is currently Extended-confirmed-protected and I'm just an autoconfirmed user with ~180 edits, I'm requesting for this page to be moved to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat COVID-19 hotspot in Delhi.

The only change in the name is the word "coronavirus", to be changed to "COVID-19". (I already moved both the corresponding pages for Pakistan and Malaysia.)

As you can see on the COVID-19 pandemic talk page, the main argument for suggesting this move is that the WP community has deliberated and recognized that is more correct to use the scientific/medical name "coronavirus disease 2019", and its oficial abbreviation COVID-19, instead of the name of the family of virus (Coronaviridae/coronavirus) of the virus strain that causes the disease (SARS-CoV-2). ACLNM (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. The move is already done by Buttons0603. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 07:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. ACLNM (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Woops, I didn't even see this discussion before doing it! Glad I could help. Buttons0603 (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Tablighi Jamaat - disputed COVID-19 section

A section on COVID-19 in Tablighi Jamaat is disputed, please discuss at Talk:Tablighi Jamaat/Archive 2#COVID-19 section. Fences&Windows 15:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Misleading opening paragraph violating npov

It is not disputed that the event was a superspreader which is what the article is about. That RW groups took political advantage of it doesn't mean that it is a "pro Hindu far right misinformation campaign". This article is title tablighi jammer Hotspot, which it was. The claim that it was done with intent to spread is a different matter and has been disproved by courts. View https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/not-just-india-jamaat-a-super-spreader-in-pak-as-well-faces-criticism-120040900159_1.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/4/7/how-tablighi-jamaat-event-became-indias-worst-coronavirus-vector Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• corrections - jamaat not jammer Liberalvedantin (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Smear campaign neutrality and undue weight

This section is a mess, and seems to give undue weight to 'smear campaign' to the page as a whole, as reflected by the opening paragraph that has provocative language. Similar language is not used in pages on 2020 Tablighi Jamaat in Pakistan or Malaysia. This needs to be changed or the page should be tagged for WP:NPOV violation and giving undue weight to the 'smear campaign'. Liberalvedantin (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Please remove two of the citations from the subsection 2020_Tablighi_Jamaat_COVID-19_hotspot_in_Delhi#Discrimination_against_Muslims as their inclusion seems to be some form of WP:OR. The two citations in question, [11] and [12] refer to the same incident in Bidhmira, Haryana where a number of muslims seem to have converted for reasons completely unrelated to Tablighi Jamaat. The other citations directly mention the Tablighi Jamaat congregation or at least Covid as a factor in the conversions. Essentially the Bidhmira, Haryana conversions appear unrelated and should not be included here. Unless there are some other independent set of reports which link them to Covid, in which case it would be better to replace the citations. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Those two sources just provide more backing information for people converting for a variety of reasons. No need to remove. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Delhi High Court remark

I am proposing to add the following to the Aftermath --> Reaction subsection.
"In November 2021, Delhi High Court reprimanded Delhi Police for failing to prove any offence committed in their initial status report, and reminding the Police that since a nationwide lockdown was imposed, giving Jamaat members a shelter to stay was not a crime and a humane step. "
Eklavya111 (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done @Eklavya111: I did it for you. Thanks. Bringtar (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

References