Just letting you know that your comment was moved to another location in this diff to change the context of the question instead of answering the very obvious question that you had asked. I have moved your comment back. --Happy New Year! ᗙ DBigXray 20:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

and now NitinMlk's comment being refactored [1] DBigXray 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting Placards on CAA ProtestEdit

Media kitna gir gaya - indeed.
What is the pichle saal ki topi? A couple of banners mentioned it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
pichle (last) saal ki (year's) topi (cap/hat), they are saying, I cant even find my cap from last winter/year. how do you expect me to find papers older than 1971 ? --DBigXray 13:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh wow that is a good, creative and in your face set of placards. So many of the people holding the placards are smiling and look happy in the pictures; look empowered. "We have been there" held by the European hits you though. DTM (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

this tweet says that CAA has open the flood gates of creativity on social media.--DBigXray 18:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do check out, the interview of Anurag Kashyap. He is a film director actively participating in protests. --DBigXray 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The great Indian Three-card Monte--DBigXray 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Donate a book to the needy... Kids on an outing, like eating pizza...
DBigXray, talking of placards, I found this one to be interesting, esp the handwritten one. DTM (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hum DekhengeEdit

Jab arz-e-khuda ke Kabe se
Sab but uthwaye jayenge

The right wing says this is firing from the "shoulders of Hindus" [2]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, why should we care ? these are just stipd distractions being put up to derail the protests. DBigXray 22:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Because they may have a point. Genuine idolators may indeed feel offended by any talk of iconoclasm, even when used metaphorically. I can't dismiss it that easily. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3, this reminds me of Vande Mataram fracas. Anyway I consider it a timesink. DBigXray 22:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


Nazification under Narendra Modi, Media coverage of fascism under Narendra Modi... DTM (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The current scholarly analysis of the Modi government is Hindu majoritarianism. There is a full article on that by Christophe Jaffrelot. See the citation at Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019#Background.
Attaching stronger labels is not warranted. But there is always the danger that majoritarianism and ethno-religious nationalism will degenerate into fascism. Some elements of that are present already, e.g., branding people as "anti-national", "unban naxal", "go to Pakistan" etc. But I won't accept the fascism label until Jaffrelot is ready to do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, The author in my link above is a scholar with several books. That said, "Modi government is fascist" is still his view point. Although I think it is now shared by many others. I am not sure if we can start an article with the topics that you suggested. For now I would suggest adding section with solid sourcing in existing articles and taking it from there. The article I linked on the top is a good interview, I would still want to hear back the answer to my question on what you think. DBigXray 12:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray Yes, it is a good interview. And Hindu majoritarianism as an article seems very hopeful; my suggestions were exaggerated of course with the usage of words such as fascism. (But if there are enough good sources for a topic, then well, there are).
To answer the question directly DBX - I would just want to evade it. I am not a scholar enough to understand and collate what happened in Germany, Russia or Italy and then compare it with the progression of events in contemporary India. Do I put it on a scale 0 to 100, with 100 being the completion of the Gleichshaltung? Do I say that India is seeing the progression of a hybrid version adapted to the Indian situation for different reasons and gains? Do I try to ascertain the level of exaggeration in the words of people as compared to the physical unfolding of events and their actual intensity and impact... I don't know. Do I see it through the eyes of a mother or soldier or farmer or businessman?... I don't know. And since I don't know what to say.... simplifying this (dangerously) to a yes or no... I would say no, nowhere near, we are at a physical binary zero. But then there is the perception part, slightly different with unique attributes from the physical aspects. Now has Modi already crossed a line of no return in that aspect?... It is up to you to answer the question yourself...
Tomorrow if you ask the question again I may have a totally different set of ramblings. What a delightful topic and stream of thoughts. And one new article in the making from it - Hindu majoritarianism DTM (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Yup. an article on Hindu majoritarianism may be the right thing to do. Vanamonde93, views? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More than meets the eyeEdit

User:DiplomatTesterMan thoughts ? --DBigXray 13:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The concerns as to NIA are way over-blown. That being said, hardly the strangest thing that has happened as to Kashmir; insider tales of the tumultuous 90s will put our best of fiction writers to shame. From a more Wikipedian perspective; does this man pass WP:GNG? WBGconverse 16:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Winged Blades of Godric He was the DSP in Pulwama. A lot of questions were raised on how 40 Kg RDX could be arranged with all these cops and army there. Also the politicians raised questions that the NSA likely allowed this to happen, for reaping political rewards. I would believe that there may indeed be some truth in these allegations. Talking about the notability, a DSP is not the top post and hence not notable on its own, but he got a President Medal (I dont know how many get it) and now this case. May be GNG due to the case makes it notable. --DBigXray 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It would be hard to imagine anything stranger than the Pulwama attack. Godhra pales in comparison. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Especially since India already had intelligence of such an attack going to happen. That is why I said, NSA likely allowed it to happen. --DBigXray 19:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Finally someone spoke it openly. DBigXray 14:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Finally someone spoke it openly"....and the tweet is gone now. Hmm. DTM (talk) 07:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Here RAIOT republishes Arundhati Roy’s introduction to 13 December, A Reader: The Strange Case of the Attack on the Indian Parliament (Delhi, Penguin India, 2006). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, She said 'Bring the terrorists to Delhi. Blast on Republic Day. Hundreds of deaths. Blamed and targeted the Muslims. Was this the script? '. Obviously no surprises that Bhakt brigade got it deleted. DBigXray 09:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
DBigXray and K3, oooops, I should never have asked :D opened a Pandora's box! (just kidding, thanks for the reading material) DTM (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


Ring a Ring-of Roses
the Door to Secularism Closes
We all fall sown[1]

"They are encouraged by the dividends the sharp communal polarisation prior to the 2019 Lok Sabha election fetched them." i can't recall why there was a communal polarisation. Can you remind me the events that caused it.? DBigXray 22:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
It was probably local to Bengal and probably generated by BJP itself by campaigning against the Bangladeshi immigrants. There is a page on 2019 Indian general election in West Bengal. But it doesn't say. This needs to be understood better. The BJP is very close to winning there. It could be the driving force for the whole CAA+NRC project. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The Hindu BusinessLine said, had it been a bi-polar contest, the TMC would have lost. Mamata is trying to some clever balancing act now, but it is probably not going to work. If the BJP can convince all the Hindu Bangladeshi immigrants that they are going to get citizenship, Mamata will be finished. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, Can you confirm the guess made by Kautilya3 on the causes of communal polarisation ? DBigXray 23:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Some data:

The CAA certainly fulfils a longstanding demand of Hindu Bangladeshi immigrants in West Bengal-mostly from the Matua community who entered India after 1971. As per the 2011 Census, Matuas comprise 17 per cent of the state's population of 100 million. They are a force to reckon with in as many as 70 assembly constituencies, out of the total 294 in Bengal. They have voting rights, but are yet to get citizenship certificates. With CAA, the BJP seeks to consolidate the support of Matuas, who helped the party secure 9-10 seats in the general election in May 2019.[2]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Shoaib Daniyal figured this all out back in April:

Shah made sure to communicate exactly this order of events at his April 22 rally in the state. “Mamata Banerjee is lying that all refugees will have to leave as a result of the NRC,” he said. “First we will bring in the Citizenship Amendment Bill, which will give citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Christian refugees. Then we will flush out infiltrators.”[3]

Repeats it in his more recent piece.[4]-- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Romita Datta, Why no one will douse the CAA fire in Bengal, India Today, 10 January 2020.
  2. ^ Kaushik Deka, Who is (not) a citizen?, India Today, 10 January 2020.
  3. ^ Shoaib Daniyal, ‘We saw what happened in Assam’: BJP’s citizens register gambit may be backfiring in Bengal, Scroll.in, 28 April 2019.
  4. ^ Shoaib Daniyal, Will NRC only target Muslims? A government clarification directly contradicts Amit Shah, Scroll.in, 21 December 2019.

January 2020 - Kindly allow the other editors to reply to your queries on NPOV for this section and let the discussion finish before reverting editsEdit

Hello, there. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 without proper discussion and without giving other editors time to reply to your questions. Talk page is discussing NPOV for this section - "Relationship with NRC".

You should wait for discussion on this issue to finish. You should give proper proposals for what changes you would like and wait for few days at least for other editors to give their responses. Since this article is highly debatable, it needs proper discussion by the Talk page editors.

Kmoksha (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Please click on the Help:Reverting page you have cited above, read its first section, and do what it says. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I will do as per that link. But why you did not let the discussion on the Talk page for NPOV for "Relationship with NRC" finish before removing and replacing your own content ? Why you did not give your full proposed changes to that section on the Talk page even when you ask everyone else to do that ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The talk discussion in the "Relationship with NRC" section has nothing to do with the content that I wrote. You are raising another red herring.
Once content has been written, you can essentially object on only three grounds. Either (a) the sources are no good, or (b) the content misrepresents the sources, or (c) it gives isolated views UNDUE prominence. Unless you are able to do any of these, you should not revert the edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Even while we were discussing NPOV on this section on the Article Talk page, you removed a whole paragraph. That paragraph violated which of your said "3 objections", that you had to remove it ? That paragraph is completely different from your new content.
Your newly inserted content violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I will give the details soon how. But my question is even after asking me to explain my revert on Talk page, without allowing me to answer, you re-reverted the edit. What is the hurry ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
You go on and on making posts, but you are not reading or absorbing what we are telling you. Your first point, I have already answered on the article talk page.
You reverted my edit at 14:57. It is now 19:58. What is stopping you from explaining the revert in all these hours? The HELP page asked you to do so before you reverted. I shouldn't have had to ask you for an explanation. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
As I told you, I will soon be telling in detail how your newly inserted content is violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view . Other people may have other jobs to do as well. So, you should give some time to others to respond. If you do not wish to answer my question that why you asked me on the Talk page reason for my revert and did not wait for that discussion to finish before re-reverting my edit ? If you do not wish to answer that question, it is your wish. -- Kmoksha (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted it because you did an unexplained revert as I said in my edit summary. If you have trouble reading edit summaries, that is not my problem. Now please get off my talk page and go do some real work, like providing an explanation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
While reverting the edit, I had specifically mentioned that discussion on this topic is ongoing. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If discussion on a topic is ongoing and that too policy discussion, the discussion should be finished on it first. So, there was an explanation, but it seems you were not satisfied by that explanation. Besides that, your newly edited content violated Wikipedia policies. I have given a detailed explained - here -- Kmoksha (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I have already called the "ongoing discussion" that you refer to as a red herring. It was talking about content you want to see added, not the content I was adding. So you cannot cite that as a reason for reverting my content.
And I have noted that you have posted an explanation. Unfortunately, it is not any policy discussion. Rather it is your usual pushing of the government propaganda couched as an objection to legitimate content. Please be sure that I will be taking it to the admins since you are now being genuinely obstructive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I would request you to talk more specifically about the article content rather than the editors. I had given a reason for reverting your edit. If you were not satisfied with that explanation and wanted a detailed explanation, you should have specified that. I have given a detailed explanation now, how your edit violated Wikipedia policies. I have only reverted the edit to previous content which was agreed upon previously by the editors. -- Kmoksha (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Filibustering by some usersEdit

User:RegentsPark and User:El C, as you may be aware there have been excessive WP:FILIBUSTERing on Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. I understand that this is a controversial article under AC DS and we all need to discuss disputes, but we have continuous display of "Not hearing" and Walls of text on the talk page there (also in the archives), and it is becoming a big time sink, when the editors could have been utilizing their precious volunteer time in actually editing the article. Any suggestions ? --DBigXray 11:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I was not aware. Can you provide a few examples? El_C 11:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
here is an example of filibustering about a FAQ document, released by the Indian govt, that failed to get attention from independent media houses and which is, according to some politicians, a part of govt's misinformation campaign to discredit CAA protests.
That does seem excessive. But Kmoksha is a new user, so they might be unaware they are crossing the line toward WP:TE. At any rate, I've placed a discretionary sanctions alert on their talk page, for now. El_C 12:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I had alerted them about DS a month back. Hope your note helps. --DBigXray 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Replying here since I was pinged. El_C Please note that :Kautilya3 had accepted only recently that section "Indian Government Response" needs to be expanded using accepted good source links of the article. Please see - here Kautilya3 even thanked me for mentioning that link in that regards. And of the 4 links which DbigXray puts, only 2 were started by me. And the second thread was started by me since Kaulitya3 had insisted to put separately issues in different threads. And he also asked me to put concrete proposals from what the section says at present and what they are proposed. So, all these charges are baseless and all this is wasting other`s time and not discussing for the improvement of the article.
The real issue here is not of WP:FILIBUSTERing but of recent disagreement regarding edits done for a section by Kautilya3 for that article. The new content put violates Wikipedia policies. Please see - Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Latest_"Relationship_to_NRC"_edit_violates_Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view_and_WP:SYNTHESIS
Regarding DBigXray`s assertions regarding alerting me, after he posted warning of "Original Research" on my talk page, I had gone to his talk page and asked him to be more specific and give some examples of what in my edit is "Original Research" and that which of my edits were not good. He did not even bother to reply !! DBigXray frequently posts vague allegations on other`s talk page in spite of frequently requesting not to do so. -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
In any case, Kmoksha, as I also note on your talk page, tending toward greater concision would be beneficial for all concerned. So I urge you to be mindful of and apply that. El_C 13:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@All, I have now added Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019/Archive_3#Government_FAQs_on_Citizenship_Amendment_Act thread link as Link #1 in my list of threads above as evidence for filibustering and walls of text. Apologies for any confusion, I may have caused. --DBigXray 13:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your response El_C . It would be really helpful if the allegations are more specific, giving what exactly I am doing wrong and example of expected behavior. I do try to improve. You can see that thread of proposal was created AFTER other editor asked me to do so.
I would like to quote text of Filibuster link here to bring things into context - "Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." Please note there has been consensus achieved that "Indian Government Response can be expanded using already accepted source links" after my efforts. I have already given the link of that in my previous comment. So, the charge of Filibustering on me is untrue and baseless. -- Kmoksha (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure that filibustering is the right term to be used here. But, Kmoksha, you do need to be clearer and more concise in your comments. My suggestion, after attempting to read the talk page of that article, is that you start afresh. Make a new section. Propose small pieces of content that you would like added or point to specific rewrites of the article (small ones). At present, it does look as if you're repeating the same arguments again and again without getting consensus while the problem may just be that other editors are unclear as to what exactly you are proposing. You may, or may not, be making good points but you're in danger of being seen as a tendentious editor and that will end up with topic bans or blocks. --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@regentspark Thanks for your response. At the beginning, I put a thread on the article Talk page telling 3 issues with the article. The editors there wanted one issue in a post. Now, when that is being done, the allegation is that there are too many posts. I have made only one thread and one proposal thread for FAQs by Indian Govt was made AFTER a editor at Talk Page told me to do so. I am being blamed for creating threads which are not even created by me. I had informed the new user that such post already exists and I gave the link for that issue. So, I am trying my best to improve the article and the Talk page.
Quoting from "tendentious editing" - "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." I had suggested recently that matter from accepted sources which are already present in the article be used to improve the article. And there has developed a consensus regarding that. I am not saying either to put any matter for or against anyone which is not supported by the sources already present in the article. So, this is not Tendentious behavior by the definition of the Wiki policy link. -- Kmoksha (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kmosksa, I think you're editing in good faith but this response of yours is illustrative of why you're having problems. If other editors have problems with you, it is rarely helpful to go into long explanations on why you're being "blamed" or unfairly treated. Rather, you should either change the way you're interacting with them, or focus on presenting small changes and sticking to content and be clear and precise in what content changes you want to see, or, in the worst case, just move to a different subject area for a while (you can always come back to this later). Tendentious editing is, in particular, very hard to see in oneself. --regentspark (comment) 01:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@regentspark I am willing to improve. But it would be really helpful if the specific wrong which I am doing is pointed out by quoting the relevant part of the wikipedia policy. And example of expected behavior is given. That is seldom done even on requesting that. DBigXray had posted warning of "Original Research" on my talk page, I had gone to his talk page and asked him to be more specific and give some examples of what in my edit is "Original Research" and that which of my edits were not good. He did not even bother to reply !! So, if other person refuses to be specific, it is not always possible to change behavior which will be satisfactory to that person also.
You said "focus on presenting small changes and sticking to content and be clear and precise in what content changes you want to see, or, in the worst case, just move to a different subject area for a while (you can always come back to this later)"
Now, I am putting as limited content as possible in one thread. But now there are false blames that there are too many posts, this is the accusation made in this post. You can see there are only 2 posts created by me on FAQs. The one archived post is a duplicate. I started the other thread because I was asked to put separate specific proposal. All this problem is since the editors are not being specific.
Please tell me that are lengthy and frequent discussions on editor behavior claims on Article Talk page regarding a healthy thing for the article improvement ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kmoksha, "tendentious editing" is a broad pattern that gets displayed over a period of time through a number of edits. It is not possible to give "examples" in the manner you are expecting. Rather, you need to reflect upon your own conduct in the light of the criticism and consider how you need to change your ways. You also need to spend a lot less time in writing posts and spend more time reading other posts and truly understand what they are saying. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and your value is determined by how well you are able to collaborate.
You should also consider editing other topics where you are less invested than this one. Being tied to a topic does not give you the breadth of experience needed to become a good editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Most of the wikipedia policies apply for a number of edits, not for one edit. These policies have listed in them tens of types , sub-types and exceptions. Unless accuser is specific what he has in mind, other person is unable to read the mind of accuser as to what he wants.
So, the accuser should point out the specific wrong which he claims that an editor is doing by quoting the relevant part of the Wikipedia policy. And link that behavior of editor showing numerous similar edits over time (Every edit is recorded on Wiki, so that can be easily done). And the accuser should try to give example of expected behavior. If one is incapable to do so by oneself, help should be asked from others. So, vague accusations do not lead to any constructive result. Rather than copy-pasting text on 10-20 editor talk pages in a week for violation of Wikipedia policies, accuser should focus on few editors. Rather than just copy-pasting text of violation and then refusing to specify them, accuser should discuss their claims in details with Quoting of the policies and other specifics mentioned previously.
I will quote here from the link Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Accusing_others_of_tendentious_editing - "Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly. Rather than accuse another editor of tendentious editing, it may be wiser to point out behaviours which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and the 3RR rule. See also: WP:AOHA and WP:ASPERSIONS."
I did edit other articles too. Managing time is my personal issue, which I will try to do so. -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@DBigXray, The second and third link given by you in the thread opener are the same, so there are only 2 threads on FAQs created by me. I have been saying all along that I created one thread with issues initially. I created another thread after I was told to not put multiple issues in one thread and to make concrete proposals for the changes I would like in the article. So, I made another thread only for Proposals for adding FAQs with their counter-points. So, where are the multiple threads on FAQs which you are claiming ? In fact, even before you posted these allegations on me, in the article Talk page when user Yndesai had started the thread on FAQs (the 4th link given by you), I had informed him that thread on this topic already exists so that he posts there. When he did not do it, I explained him "we should FIRST see the already accepted source links of the article. In my opinion, they have sufficient matter in them to improve the article. Adding new sources should be done only if present sources are insufficient." And he closed the thread himself ! So, you can see if we are polite to others and explain them properly, they understand and change behavior.
When I made the first edit, you straightaway went and copy pasted on my talk page language which is accusatory and vague, without detailed information what I have done incorrect. So, I went to your talk page and asked you to give some examples of which edits were "Original Research". You never mentioned those either on your talk page or on my talk page !! So, you can see the difference in my and your behavior with other editors and which is more efficient in changing behavior. Now, I would request you to end this campaign of vague charges on me and focus on improving Wikipedia articles. -- Kmoksha (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, I looked into this first edit about which you have complained several times. The edit you made on Christmas Day replaced the existing sources with egazette (the text of the Act) for the lead sentence and somewhere down the line the government FAQ. Both of these are WP:PRIMARY sources, which should be used with much caution, if at all, and certainly not for the lead sentence. You also removed existing content about the relation to the NRC, using your own arguments as to what the page should cover. DBigXray's revert, done within minutes, said " Pov edits with poor sourcing, discuss on the talk page please". The "POV" refers to the fact that you were pushing the Government viewpoint. "Poor sourcing" refers to the fact that you were using PRIMARY sources. And he invited you to discuss it on the talk page.

The warning message you received is the standard template message for WP:NOR. There is no separate template message for using PRIMARY sources. However, if you had clicked on the link given, and read through at least one section of it, you would have known that the issue was PRIMARY sources. They do not fit into the five categories of sources listed as being acceptable "reliable sources". DBigXray's "original research" complaint also possibly refers to your arguments in your summary:

3. NRC is not part of CAA and its rules and procedures are yet to be decided and so NRC should not be discussed in this wiki article. 4. Bill does not exclude anyone, it does not include people other than those who meet certain criteria.

If you want to raise points like that, you need to do so on the talk page and obtain CONSENSUS, not in an edit summary where nobody can respond to you.

You removed the warning message within 20 minutes. It is not clear whether you had read the policy page by then. Your next action a few hours later, was to write on DBigXray's talk page, saying "You have not pointed even a few sources which were not according to Wikipedia policy". You also seemed to be accusing him of bad faith and possible conflict of interest, neither of which was warranted. "Discuss on the talk page please" is a perfectly polite and welcoming conduct on the part of DBigXray. His response was also equally polite.

The normal course of action we expect of experienced editors at this stage, both as a response to "discuss on the talk page please" and reference to WP:BRD, is to post a message on the article talk page, asking for why your edit was reverted. The subsequent discussion on your talk page, in the presence of two admins, is certainly not edifying.

Your eventual post on the article talk page is perfectly ok. It is the right thing to do. But, after having made the post, I think you didn't carefully listen to the objections that were raised, and find other solutions. For example you could have dug up the "IE Explained NRC+CAA" article, which does cover the Government FAQ in the context of its own discussion, and proposed content based upon it. You are yet to do that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Will now respond to the allegations by Kautilya3
1. "pushing the Government viewpoint" and related allegations -
I would like to say once again that my principal concern is for improvement of the Wikipedia article. Other editors have similar expressed concerns on the Talk page that the Citizenship Amendment Act article is of poor quality lacking proper view points. As told multiple times by me, FAQs released by Indian Government was a major event covered prominently by Indian media, so it should be covered in the article. One can see that I have proposed critique along with the Government response. Will a person whose sole aim is to "push Government viewpoint" put critique of the Government FAQs in his proposal ? NO. So, I fail to see why few editors continue with their allegations of "pushing the Government viewpoint"
From Day 1, vague charges have been levied on my talk page and elsewhere.
2. My First and Second Edits of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 Wiki Article -
2.1 Allegations of adding Primary sources -
Please see the statement by Kautilya3 while discussing on Article Talk page regarding Primary sources -
"The citations where the text is directly quoted will remain, as per the policy on WP:PRIMARY. "
The egazette link was already in the source links and so was used by me as reference for the definition of the act. Unless someone tells me, I did not find anything wrong with that.
2.2 My first edit and DBigXray's revert -
In my first edit, I had made several changes amongst which one was -
"In practice, non-Muslim minorities do face discrimination and persecution." This statement from BBC is there in the current Wiki article version.
An experienced editor is expected to not revert blindly the whole edit but to keep part of the edit which is useful for the Wikipedia article. My first and second edits had useful parts like correction of spelling mistakes etc. but the whole edits were reverted within mintues without bothering to conserve the parts which could be useful for the article.
See what the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Revert says -

"Before reverting, first consider whether the original text could have been better improved in a different way or if part of the edit can be fixed to preserve some of the edit,..."

On talk page of DBigXray, I had written "you reverted all of the edits without going through all the edits. You wrote in your edit to discuss on talk page of article. But you yourself posted on my user page and said that "it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies." You have not pointed even a few sources which were not according to Wikipedia policy. Even if you had pointed a few and corrected those, I would have corrected the rest. My whole effort was to remove errors including hearsay, unreliable sources and make the article have a neutral point of view."
I removed the warning message by DBigxay because it had no details regarding what was wrong with my edit. It was simple copy-paste. Accusing on another editor`s talk page and not giving any examples of what was wrong with the edit is not polite, but accusatory. Reverting in 20 minutes does not in any way prove that I did not read the policies listed in that copy-paste.
3. Nationwide NRC procedure details
The Nationwide NRC full details have not been yet declared but Kautilya3 had claimed that full Nationwide NRC rules were published in 2003. So, I asked him question that "for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India. He has not even responded to that yet. See - here.
4. "IE Explained NRC+CAA" article and Government FAQs -
Kautilya3 said that I have not yet proposed content for Government FAQs based on this secondary source. Please note that Yndesai has suggested in my thread already but Kautilya3 or other Talk page editors have not responded to that yet. I would request all to kindly give their opinions on that.
I have earlier answered other allegations like posting several threads on Government FAQs. Of the links posted by DBigXray, two are duplicate and one is by Yndesai, so only two were started by me. And the second one was started since I was asked to give concrete proposal regarding what should be added in the article regarding this topic.
You can see that I have, as far as possible, tried to adjust with other editors with aim to improve the Wiki article. That is my sole aim. For example, when I was told to give limited number of proposals in one thread, that is what I have been doing.
So, I would request to STOP false allegations on me and talk about improving the article.
Kmoksha (talk) 09:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)