Talk:Citizenship Amendment Act protests

Active discussions

Add a new sub-section of "Violence by protestors"Edit

Rishang123 (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an information page, so information from both sides should be present. There were a lot of instances where violence and riots happened in the name of peaceful protests due to which Police has to intervene. Public property, public transport were destroyed, a lot of police personnel were injured and videos of police being lynched has surfaced on the internet Supreme court has also said that the violence must end when it was asked to listen to pleas alleging police atrocities on students holding protests against the Act "The top court said it, prima facie, does not think court can do much in the matter as it is a law and order problem and police forces have to control it." (16-Dec-2019)


Supreme court on hearing the plea of students against the police action in Jamia

57 police personnel recieved Gunshot injuries

Anti CAA protest attack police Jeep

Protestor's murderous attack on Police

Violence against police

Violence against — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajbol (talkcontribs) 15:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Rishang123, vandalism and stone pelting are mentioned among the methods of protest in the infobox at the top of the article. Specific examples, if important enough in themselves, can be added to the section about the relevant state. Also, please sign your edits on this page, by typing four tildes (~) after your comment. Thank you. Jose Mathew (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
The alleged attacks on police in Ahmedabad and Banaskanthi have been included in the section on Gujarat. Not a Gujarati speaker, so cannot confirm audio in recordings. Not sure whether police injuries and stone-throwing incidents can be included. Jose Mathew (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
How about Manguluru, where stones had been trucked in in advance in order to attack the police? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that a section covering violence and damage to public property should be added. M4DU7 (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I disagree, with the proposal to add such a section. it will violate WP:NPOV--Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXray 21:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain how hundreds of crores worth damage in arson violate NPOV? M4DU7 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
what makes you think that protesters and not police did that. There are many videos of Police damaging property.Police Damaged Public Property During Citizenship Law Protests In UP: Akhilesh YadavWho will compensate damage to private property by cops during Muzaffarnagar violence?: S Saiduzzaman --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXray 21:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Why does it matter what I think? There are literally hundreds of news reports that detail the violence and arson carried out by the protesters across the country. Now different state governments are trying to track down the culprits and make them pay for the damages. It's everywhere in the news. I'm surprised that there is no mention of any of that here. In my view, not covering that aspect violates NPOV. M4DU7 (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
We should definitely add the counter-claims (of police violence) too if they are widely reported. M4DU7 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Not done a), such a section would typically be an NPOV violation; such violence needs to be discussed in the context of the protests during which it occurred, and b) edit-requests are for changing specific items of information; such a section could take many forms, and for it to be added via an edit-request, you would have to post a version of the text that you want added first. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Fake videosEdit

Dey subrata can you self revert and restore this. Viral videos are generally covered on wikipedia. This was widely covered in RS media, see[1][2][3][4][5] --DBigXray 13:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "FAKE ALERT: Old video from Kumbh Mela shared as naga sadhus rallying in support of CAA - Times of India". The Times of India.
  2. ^ Check, Times Fact (January 7, 2020). "CAA के सपॉर्ट में नागा साधुओं की रैली? नहीं, यह विडियो कुंभ मेले का है".
  3. ^ Bajpai, Akshay (8 January 2020). "सीएए के समर्थन के नाम से नागा साधुओं का वीडियो वायरल, पड़ताल में पता चला क्लिप कुंभ की है". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). Retrieved 9 January 2020.
  4. ^ "Video Falsely Shows Kumbh Mela as Pro-CAA Rally in Haridwar". The Quint. January 8, 2020.
  5. ^ "Old video of 2019 Kumbh Mela shared with a fake claim of naga sadhus rallying in support of CAA".
There is hardly any newspaper/website (one OR two english website) reported on it. Secondly, there are many such videos being circulated, if you open alt news, you will find many. So I think we can just add under "Fake campaign", just one line- "Fake videos are also circulated or made viral to show support infavour of CAA-NRC." Dey subrata (talk) 13:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, Navbharat times, Times of India and Dainik Bhaskar are major national newspapers. They are enough to establish that this is worth adding. If there are more notable videos widely published, feel free to add. The version you proposed is highly simplistic and does not give enough understanding to the reader. The 2 line version I wrote is better hence. Fake campaign is again misleading and wP:OR. DBigXray 13:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It says fact fiding or debunk fake videos. There is no where its written. "got viral". Why should we include such a thing which is not affecting as its being debunked before its got viral. So better we should write one line only on this that several videos and photos are being circulated to show support infavour of CAA. Here you can see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, there are many more. Dey subrata (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, Please see Bhaskar that says it is viral. You are adding minor protests that even had "hundred protesters" but here you are trying to keep out viral videos that have thousands and lakhs of views and are covered by Major national newspapers in India. I have completed the WP:BURDEN and explained why it is merited. Unless I hear a stronger policy based argument, this has to be restored back. Let me clarify again. I am not bothered about how many other videos are being spread, or how many debunked by Altnews. I am only concerned about the Notable viral videos that national newspapers consider worth publishing in their newspapers. --DBigXray 13:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I will like to add, but when the mention of viral video is in hindi papers only that's what I am concerned, its better to add English citation if its mentioned. You asked me to see the hindi newspaper, I can read, but someone else can't. So there should be an additional citation to support the hindi newspaper, can be directly the twitter link or social media link whereever it got viral. Dey subrata (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, Hindi newspapers are not in any way inferior to the English newpapers. Please get rid of this Language WP:BIAS. No, contrary to what you say, editors do not have to worry about the language of the refs. You are free to add ref in whatever language you want as long as the criteria of WP:RS is met. there is no criteris of adding an additional citation in English, I am not sure, from where you are getting these imaginary rules. FYI Twitter or social media links are not WP:RS. I think we have had sufficient discussion and I would appreciate if you self revert this yourself. DBigXray 14:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done Dey subrata thanks for the self revert.DBigXray 20:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that fake videos existed, but what's the significance of adding them in the support section? How do they in any way qualify as "Pro-CAA demonstrations" if the were fake? They should hold no significance and by putting them as a sub-heading along with other support-demonstrations, it gives WP:UNDUE weight to a viral video over a demonstration that involved thousands of people and to other relevant and REAL incidents. To be clear, we have given equal importance to a fake video which supposedly qualifies as support of CAA and to demonstrations which involve thousands of people. Also, leaving aside that it is fake. Does it matter that a circulating video supports or protests against something? It is my understanding that it is incidents that the video is of is to be put in the article. There was no actual incident that took place, just the sharing of a video. This has no place in "demonstrations" or "support."

Please WP:SIGN your posts. It shows the tactics used by the ruling party in their attempts to drum up supports. Not every fake video deserves a mention here. But those covered by major national newpapers deserves a mention. If you have a proposal to copy edit and summarize the content, then post it here on the talk page and we can discuss about it. --DBigXray 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
So "It shows the tactics used by the ruling party in their attempts to drum up supports." is what gives it relevance. Sources to back that it is a tactic by the ruling party?Pheeniks (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
That is my opinion and I have not added it into the article. What gives it relevance is that it was published by major national newspapers. DBigXray 15:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
My argument was on hindi newpaper, which I later found out, it ok to be added. "....what's the significance of adding them in the support section? Yes its significant, such videos are tweeted, shared, supported and made viral so far so, leaders are supporting, sharing and tweeting in favour of CAA. So its very significant. Dey subrata (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I get it. I just don't feel they deserve a place in the Supports section. Can we shift this to "Methods" since it contains methods from both the protestors and police? That would make for a suitable subheading to put the relevant fake stuff from both sides.Pheeniks (Talk) 17:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray, I think what Pheeniks said is logical, as these are the methods to support the pro campaign "fake video", "fake campaign" and "fake news". Though I don't support that CAA protest have any fake campagn, its bizzare to think that the protest need any fake campaign. Its not a political party's protest but general people's protest. What do you say? Dey subrata (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Dey. Actually there have been incidents from the protests' side where fake images of policemen protesting against CAA/NRC were circulated. It was covered by a lot of major outlets too. There were fake videos of Policemen supposedly firing on CAA protestors too. That too was covered by major outlets. I'll be happy to add the relevant content and the references once this gets resolved. As of now, it's not clear where all that should go. Pheeniks (Talk) 12:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"Mass shootings"Edit

The infobox states that the police retaliated with "Mass shootings". Which definition of Mass shooting are we considering and what's the exact source for the same? I am of the opinion that "Mass shootings" imply an entirely different thing. See the general trend in instances mentioned in Mass shooting and you'll see what I'm talking about. If you go through those incidents you can immediately see why they qualify as mass shooting. I am not cherry picking here while giving examples here. These are the some of the first few examples in Mass shooting: Meet al-Attar shooting, Kampala wedding massacre, Lod Airport massacre, Erfurt school massacre, 2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheeniks (talkcontribs) 12:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Mass shooting says in the first line "A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence. " This is what happened and this is supported by these refs.[1][2]


  1. ^ "CAA protests: Video shows police firing at protesters, contrary to UP DGP claims". 23 December 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  2. ^ "CAA: UP Police Shot And Killed Muslims Who Weren't Even Protesting, Says Activist Kavita Krishnan". HuffPost India. 26 December 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
Pheeniks Please read WP:TE and remember that [[WP:POV] and biased editings may lead to page restrictions. --DBigXray 13:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
1. I didn't find these sources attached with the mass shooting phrase. It was my understanding that if there if there is no source mentioned, it qualifies as unsourced.
2. The sources that you mentioned don't mention mass shooting. The first reference doesn't contain any evidence or claim of "an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence.". It just talks of supposed proof of shooting by police, but not of any victims as a result. The second reference is an interview with an activist with no proof or sources. Again, I don't see how it contains sources of a mass shooting.
3. Please see the examples that I mentioned and the additional criteria required for Mass shooting and what it implies.
4. Other than how these sources don't qualify as mass shooting in any way, in my opinion (feel free to respond to point 2), please see WP:NOR. Please read WP:NOR and remember that WP:POV and biased editings may lead to page restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheeniks (talkcontribs) 13:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder what you have to say about these sources. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] [9][10][11][12]--DBigXray 14:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Assam CAA protest: 4 dead in police firing, 175 arrested, more than 1400 detained". India Today. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  2. ^ "Anti-CAA protests: 2 protesters killed in police firing in Mangaluru". India Today. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  3. ^ "CAA protest: Two killed in police firing in Mangaluru, Congress demands judicial probe". The Economic Times. 19 December 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  4. ^ "Two killed as police open fire amid raging India protests, bringing toll from week's unrest to eight". The Japan Times Online. 20 December 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  5. ^ "Two people who died in Mangaluru police firing booked for rioting". Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  6. ^ "Indian police open fire to clear CAA protests". Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  7. ^ "Delhi Cops Did Fire During Jamia Protests, Records Show: Sources". Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  8. ^ Roychoudhury, Archis Mohan Yuvraj Malik & Arup (20 December 2019). "3 killed in police firing as protests against citizenship law sweep country". Business Standard India. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  9. ^ "UP police admit to firing at anti-CAA protesters". Deccan Herald. 24 December 2019. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  10. ^ "UP police contradict chief, admit firing". Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  11. ^ "UP police admit to firing at anti-CAA protesters". Rediff. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
  12. ^ "2 minor boys killed in police firing during anti-CAB protests in Guwahati". India Today. Retrieved 11 January 2020.
Please respond point to point as it makes it easy for us and others to see and understand the arguments and counter arguments.
1. Please respond to point 1 and 3.
2. You seem to be justifying police firing and not mass shooting. Please go through the article Mass shooting and see how mass shooting is different from police firing.
3. Literally half the articles you mentioned are about the fact that "police fired" and half are about people dying (mostly 1 or 2) in a city and not in a specific region as mass shootings imply. Again, please read Mass shooting and realise how every shooting incident where people die is not mass shooting.
4. More than one references are completely invalid here and you haven't added them in the original article too. Please refrain from statements like "I wonder what you have to say about these sources." and realize that WP:BURDEN is on you to justify the inclusion of the phrase as you're adding it. Please justify how "mass shooting" is justified through references while taking care of WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheeniks (talkcontribs) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
The definition is met and well sourced. Reliable sources for the same have been added. you are free to have your own wild opinions and fancy criterias. --DBigXray 17:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok, can you explain how reference 7 (Delhi Cops Did Fire During Jamia Protests, Records Show: Sources) qualifies as a reference of Mass shooting?Pheeniks (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
My mistake. I didn't notice that you added the subheading "methods used by government"". I see that you've put the two sources that you mentioned in your first reply. You never did clarify once how they qualify as mass shooting. At least refute my arguments instead of pasting 11 more references, saying "let's see what you say now" and then putting the original two citations in the first place.Pheeniks (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
To further clarify why I think the first link (gulfnews) doesn't qualify as Mass shooting is because it doesn't even fit your partial-definition of "A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence.". The reference doesn't talk about deaths in that shooting AT ALL. About the second reference, I don't see how that is a source at all. It's an interview with an activist. I genuinely appealing to you to see what Mass shooting implies and how these two references do not contain anything remotely similar to a Mass shooting.Pheeniks (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Please take a look at this Shooting video Published by a news site. And then review the refs above. I added the 2 refs that I found at first. I am ok to replace them with any other ref from those above, that you think are better than them. --DBigXray 20:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if the YouTube video by "OneIndia Kannada" qualifies as WP:Mainstream and whether YouTube videos are permissible or not (like Facebook). The issue, however, is not that. When you say that I should look at this video and then see the above two references, you are asking me to draw conclusions (which you might believe are implied). This is exactly what WP:NOR asks you to not do. If you have to read a news piece, then on not finding anything related to "mass shooting", you have to go to a YouTube video (of a different place altogether - UP and Mangalore), then draw some conclusion that police must be engaging in Mass shooting, then it is certainly your own research (which I find wrong too, but that's irrelevant). Also, I still think you're interpreting the term "mass shooting" in a very different way from what it actually means (Using the Wikipedia article for the same for reference). Multiple people dying in various locations over the course of weeks or months don't qualify as mass shooting too. Still, this case of (mis)interpretation might not matter much here, since the main problem is WP:NOR. I don't see a source calling this "Mass shooting" at all and paraphrasing "Shooting" to "Mass shooting" is plain wrong too, as I'm sure you understand at this point.Pheeniks (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposal: Change it to "Use of firearms" or "Shooting" which more accurately describes the situation and is perfectly validated by all your sources too. I just don't agree with the term Mass shooting, as it has widely different implications. Pheeniks (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Pheeniks, Please explain why it is not mass shooting. In the video I linked above while the mass shooting was happening, a cop, says in Kannada language "Why is no one dying ?" DBigXray 15:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
In the Definitions section of Mass shooting, there are seven definitions listed. The first, second and fourth define "mass killings", so they don't hold much weight. The remaining four definitions that actually define "Mass shooting" define it as more than four/five (depending on the definition) people getting injured or dying in a shooting incident. Now, the last definition is the most important as it says that it's the definition used by most American outlets too, which says "FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event". The term "single event" is very important as well, which is mentioned in the lead as well. If there is an incident (like this Mangaluru one) for which there is a reliable source and where four or more people were injured/killed due to shooting, I feel that will justify the term "mass shooting". If you feel I'm wrong, please argue why.Pheeniks (Talk) 17:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
User:DBigXray, it's been a week since this discussion has been pending. It would be great if you could reply here and we reach a consensus.Pheeniks (Talk) 12:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Pheeniks, I have already said all I had to say. Your proposal to use shooting is not acceptable as it amounts to whitewashing. The def, of mass shooting on wikipedia is satisfied with our case. As the firing occurred on a crowd and there were multiple casualties [1]. Reliable sources have been give abve. you seem to have a different definition of the word. unfortunately we have to go with the common usage of the word and not as per a specific usage by someone. DBigXray 12:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Literally from the first paragraph of Mass shooting - "Based on this, it is generally agreed that a mass shooting is whenever four or more people are shot (injured or killed), not including the shooter(s)." Thank you for mentioning that we should go with the common usage. Do you agree now?Pheeniks (Talk) 14:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, reminding again, it should be one incident.Pheeniks (Talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence.

the definition in the lead is satisfied. The definition you are quoting is from FBI and not the international English meaning of the word. multiple people had died in Assam, Up and Mangalore. The content is sourced. DBigXray 15:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Dey subrata User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911 you two are other major contributors to this page, What are your thoughts on this thread. IMHO we should keep the word in Infobox while Pheeniks believes we should remove it. What are your thoughts on this. --DBigXray 15:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

User:DBigXray, I believe that the mass shooting term should be either be removed or kept at the last in the methods list. There have been few instances where the police shot at protestors, so I'd say the term can be kept, but it is hardly the most prominent response of the police to the protests. Besides, there is no widely accepted definition for mass shootings... RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
RedBulbBlueBlood9911, Thank you for sharing your kind opinion on the dispute. Since this has happened in the protest, it has to be kept, remove it amounts to whitewashing. The ordering is a separate discussion. Taking the risk of going offtopic, let me address that. Generally the ordering is done by most severe on the top followed by less severe at the end. So if 1 died and 10 injured, Wikipedia will say 1 dead and mention 10 injured later, even though the injured are more in number. This same order is also used by WP:MAINSTREAM media on which Wikipedia is based. User:Dey subrata your thoughts ? DBigXray 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
"Besides, there is no widely accepted definition for mass shootings" Agreed. That's part of my reasoning. However, I still argue that it should be completely removed. There is no consensus on the definition of mass shootings but had at least one definition mentioned on Mass shooting matched any of the references, I would have voted to keep it. Just taking the first line of the article seems a bit dishonest to me when there is an entire section dedicated to "Definitions" on the page. Leaving aside this fact, had any of the references used the word "mass shooting", a case could have been made for the inclusion of the term in questionPheeniks (Talk) 15:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC).
Pheeniks, IMHO indian media will always say "10 killed in Firing" instead "10 killed in Mass Shooting". Call it local lingo if you want. Mass Shooting is the internationally accepted word for this, So Wikipedia must use the common word. Anyway We both have talked a lot, let others speak now. --DBigXray 16:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
There has been lots of coverage from foreign media too. And yes, leaving the discussion to others now.Pheeniks (Talk) 16:03, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Pheeniks and DBigXray, the term is not defined properly by adminstration and govt. anywhere in world. Its a fact that when multiple people dies from open firing or shooting (one person/multiple person) its been called as mass murder but when open firing with multiple rounds at a gathering or a crowded mass, often termed by the receiving side as mass shooting, like in US, people and media often call the shooting incidents happened in recent past as mass shooting but the system/police don't want to call it as mass shooting (by instruction of authority who use it as political tool or saving the image of system). There is no other definition exist for- a group (police) shooting multiple rounds of fire (as happened in UP 1 120 rounds of fire ) at a gathering or crowd while two person died and some injured, its mass shooting. Such incidents are different from one situation to other, so mass shooting is preferred term. Dey subrata (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

32K people identified in UP for CAAEdit

User:Kautilya3, Dey, where should this be added ? CAA or here. --DBigXray 19:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

[2] looks like preliminary form. --DBigXray 19:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray Should be added in both the article of the protest and CAA main article. There are a lot of controversy regarding this, a separate setion should be made in CAA main article. Here in this article in UP section and timeline. Dey subrata (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Split noticeEdit

Hello Wikipedia editors! I have notice for all readers in English Wikipedia that this article was split into 3 articles, namely CAA protest itself, JNU attack, and Shaheen Bagh protest. There are now have separate articles despite there are related causes about passage of Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019. This is only info for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Must go through WP:LENGTH, WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPLITTING and WP:SPINOFF to understand wikipedia policy. Dey subrata (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Edits by SockEdit

Hi User:Aman.kumar.goel if the sock edits are the only concern for removing the content, then I would like to keep the edits since they are constructive article improvements. If you have other specific concerns, then please discuss here so that we can decide how to handle them. --DBigXray 12:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed this one, the material however nothing to do with sockpuppetry, constructive materials and the section that the user added "Underlying causes" was important which I was going to add, and was discussed here in the talk page also, but could not add because I was busy with personal work but the user eased my work. I don't think this could in any way be a reason for removing such valuable materials from the article just because its a sock puppet case. Dey subrata (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

High-level commentariesEdit

Hi all, I don't have enough time to contribute to this page. But I would like to recommend some high-level commentaries that are describing the broad patterns behing the protests. Please read them and think about how you can make use of them in the article:

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Need to include these articlesEdit

--DBigXray 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Some in timeline, some in sections like of the videos to the fake video section. And I think the Delhi section needs a retouch, its not updated properly. What do you say? Dey subrata (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, yes, please feel free to work with these articles. Mark the link here with a  Y if you have done covering it. I didn't get time to add today so I posted here. DBigXray 23:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Citizenship Amendment Act protests" page.