![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
I am adding these additional citations to prevent future vandalism and provide a one-stop avenue for anyone wishing to know more about the importance of the matter.
Resources in Hindi:
I hope this will be enough for every one. JusticeNeeded123 (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure it is correct to say that the "suburb" entered "the national spotlight" based on what appears to be an unfortunate event that happened 5 years ago, and has been extensively discussed in the talk section below. While anyone certainly sympathizes with the family of the victim(s) of this crime, I am not sure it is appropriate to include this section. Essentially, it looks like we have a "stub"-class article about a "suburb in India", with a full section entitled "controversy" that is a collection of local news articles about a crime. Furthermore, based on the text, I am not sure what the ``controversy" is exactly, as "controversy" means "prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion". While one could include a list of crimes committed in any geographic location, township etc., I am not sure that this is the current practice followed by Wikipedia. (Statistics on murders and violent crime I guess could be included?) So propose I deleting or editing the new section. But I leave it to more experienced editors to take the final call, since it appears the user who added the section has an emotional interest in this issue, and I do not wish to upset them/enter in a prolonged debate.
Nilpotent137 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I do not have an emotional connection with the matter. As has been concluded in the talk section below by other senior editors, the problem is not with including it on this page but with violating the NPOV and BLP policies of Wikipedia. The information added violates none of these.
Also, the people accused and the role played by the institute make this case allegedly controversial. Wikipedia does include controversial murder cases. Arushi and Hemraj double murder case [[98]] and Sister Abhaya murder case [[99]] are two examples where the controversial nature of the crime have warranted inclusion in Wikipedia. Since, this is an under trial case, I have not added any further information.
Leading media organizations like TOI have repeatedly mentioned the controversial nature of the murder. [[100]]
So, restoring the content unless other senior editors disagree with the views expressed. JusticeNeeded123 (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
The event clearly does not compare to the Noida double murder case. That event was noteworthy because critics duvved it a trial by media, and apparently innocent people were accused and labeled guilty by media that were later found innocent. So it sparked a national debate on the issue of trial by media. In any case, the Wikipedia article on Noida does not mention it.
The references are mostly local newspapers, or Agra City editions of national newspapers. It is misleading and unencyclopeadic to say the locality shot into the national spotlight. NooneEdits (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
1) Go through "all" of the additional citations mentioned above. Read every post. Watch every video. Don't just read the titles. It is incorrect to say that they are mostly local newspapers.
2) Facts which make this case controversial, notable and relevant to this page:-
a) The accused's grandfather was next in line to the Guru in the community's hierarchy and was the president of the Dayalbagh Satsang Sabha. This same community predominantly populates and manages Dayalbagh.
b) The accused's grandfather became the Director of the institute, and was the Chairman of the trust which manages the institute.
c) The accused's grandfather is a retired senior administrative officer, who allegedly used his political contacts to hinder the investigation. (as claimed by the police and the media.)
d) Alternate theories popping up in the media. See video in the linked post. [[101]]
e) The alleged botched up investigation by the local police.
f) Local police unsure whether Neha was raped before death or not.
g) Report by local police that the slide to assess the rape got corrupted.
h) CBI using the same slide to find the accused's DNA.
i) Unexplained access to the accused of the nano-biotechnology lab.
j) City wide protests in Agra by DEI students, and subsequent lathicharge by the police.
k) The case was discussed in the J&K parliament and a police team was sent by JKP.
l) The case was discussed in Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly.
m) The incident sparked debates on the national media drawing parallels with the Nirbhaya murder case.
n) UP's CM recommending the CBI probe, despite local police already claiming to have solved the case.
o) Repeated claims in the media that the investigating agencies were under pressure.
p) Unexplained popping up of evidence at places where nothing was found earlier.
q) No one initially willing to testify against the accused, and an eyewitness pops up only after 3 months allegedly because of the influential nature of the accused's family.
r) Police despite knowing that the accused was sending harassing messages to the victim did not take him into custody for over a month.
I could go on and on. Go through every reference and read every line and see every minute of the linked videos and you will find all your answers. AgraDEIstudent (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the location of the Neha Sharma Murder Case to the bottom of the Dayalbagh wikipedia article. I don't understand the need to put an isolated incident to the top of a page that should primarily about the locality. If your defense is to say that this is an important event, I will not disagree with you there, but it is an ongoing event, which can be better served at wikinews or searched at the news portals and should not be the primary subgroup in the article. Whether it should be there or not (I disagree that it should have a really long entry as there is no charge for the accused - they've only been arrested) I leave that to the other editors.
Duniyadnd 08:56 June 22 2013 (EST)
I am deleting the Neha Sharma murder case section for the following reasons:
Detrainman (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I am re-adding the Neha Sharma murder case section for the following reasons:
AgraNewsObserver,
Detrainman (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Detrainman,
AgraNewsObserver (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
AgraNewsObserver:
I am not going to edit the page right now, because we are in disagreement.
To clarify:
Please read this:
Finally:
Detrainman,
Regarding your clarifications:
Please read this:
Finally:
AgraNewsObserver (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
If you are unable to achieve consensus, can I suggest you seek an experienced editor to review the discussion and who might come up with their thoughts on how to proceed? I have used this approach previously to good effect. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest that contributors familiarise themselves with WP:BLP policy before adding such material. Much of it seems to be sourced to scanned sources uploaded by unknown persons - this is never acceptable as (a) it braches copyright, and (b) it is impossible to verify the authenticity of the content. I suggest that anyone wishing to include material related to the murder in this article starts by linking here the necessary sources to establish that the murder case is of direct relevence to the subject of the article - and note that translation may be required for anything not in English. If it can be estanblished that this murder is relevent to the article topic at all, it will of course be necessary to discuss it only to the extent that due weight requires. This article must not be used as a coatrack for off-topic material, or as a means to disparage the subject of the article by implication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Further to this, I would remind contributors that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia - including talk pages. Describing an unconvicted person as a 'murderer' is a gross breach of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: I have raised this matter at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Articles on Dayalbagh and the Dayalbagh Educational Institute, and asked for outside assistance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The section does not say that the accused is the murderer and is in line with NPOV. A lot of what is in the section can be verified at http://www.indianexpress.com/news/laboratory-of-murder-clues/1107266/0 . To verify the rest of the content, I request users having knowledge of Hindi to read the eArchives of Amar Ujala Agra edition dated 16th March to 30th April at http://earchive.amarujala.com.
I also request Andy to suggest better ways to source content published in print newsp apers.
AgraNewsObserver (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
People are getting quite excited about not getting this case added to wikipedia. Steven Colbert said that "Reality has become a commodity" for a reason. Out of curiosity ... did Andy ever get back to you about a better way to source content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.121.9 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 30 August 2014
AndyTheGrump ... Actually the news sources referred to are quite respectable and reliable. On what basis are you basing your opinion that Times of India, Zee News, NewsXpress and Indian Express are not reliable? 24.125.121.9 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Good that no one is citing "lack of evidence from published reliable sources" anymore and have agreed that these sources are reliable. One of these reliable sources say that "Agra police has arrested grandson of DayalBagh Santsangh Sabha president and former Director of the University and a laboratory technician at DayalBagh for the murder of 25-year-old Jammu research scholar Neha Sharma"[1]. Now is it relevant? ;-)24.125.121.9 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit confused, by use of term Dayalbagh colony. As per wikipedia Colony is "in politics and history, a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the sovereign." This aside, one will have to read all of the the admitted reliable source to get a holistic picture of how this section is sourced. One of reliable sources does say that the murder took place in lab of Dayalbagh educational institute[2]. Now can this can be added to either this article or perhaps to the Dayalbagh Educational Institute?24.125.121.9 (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
First and foremost, I am glad that this is a civil discussion. The initial emotional and questionable reaction creates an incorrect negative impression about the direction in which discussion may proceed. I agree that the article in its current form is misleading ... one example of this, as you have pointed out term 'colony' in not its usual sense is misleading. Further now, that you are no longer questioning location of the murder, perhaps you would also agree on "well cited" news that murder for which grandson of Dayalbagh Santsangh Sabha president and former Director of the University along with a laboratory technician at DayalBagh Educational institute, does adds enough element of controversy to warrant an addition in wikipedia. If not, please explain24.125.121.9 (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump ... this is talk page about Dayalbagh and I am glad we are having a civil discussion. The initial emotional reaction was anything but polite/professional and the fact on getting a polite but firm response, you closed/abandoned the "talk" created an incorrect impression.
The point about the article being incorrect at places ... term [colony]] was used in the article, you also had stated "it obviously doesn't mean 'colony' in the usual sense of the term". Doesn't this implies this term is incorrectly used? I am sorry to say this ... right from beginning you are firm in conclusion "the responses, that <- WP:BLP violation redacted -> should not be added to wikipedia", but reasoning is changing all the time!
First you questioned "reliability of the sources", once it was established that the sources are reliable; your reasoning changed to establishing a connection, once this was answered; then you questioned 'where the murder took place', when this was established that the murder took place in Dayalbagh Educational institute's lab; you started talking about colony and are now have a new reason. Also note that all the facts that were pointed out to you were present in citations and yet you were questioning them. May I ask reason for this 'changing reasoning' with firm 'conclusion'? <-gross violation of WP:BLP policy redacted AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC) -> 24.125.121.9 (talk) 07:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Is Dayalbagh a territory under the immediate political control of a state, distinct from the home territory of the India? Or not?63.88.70.247 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
References
This file, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayalbagh#/media/File:Dayal-bagh-12.JPG, is NOT a photograph of Dayal Bagh, but is actually a picture of Soamibagh.
Since this page is being repeatedly targetted by vandals, I am creating this new section so that they can express their point of view as to why the controversy section should be removed. Explain yourself before removing the section. AgraDEIstudent (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course, deleting a section because it is not appropriate to include in an article is not vandalism. Examples of vandalism include adding false statements and jokes for entertainment purposes. <Removed for violating WP:No Personal Attacks>
I am removing the two unjustified statements in the section controversies. 1: that students protested in the streets for justice. Given that there is very little proper documentation of this event, and there is no document of the institute's response, I don't think it is justified to include it. 2: that the suburb shot into the national spotlight. This is false hyperbole. National spotlight means front page of several national newspapers. This is not the case.
NooneEdits (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
1) See WP:Vandalism. [[102]] [[103]].
2) Avoid personal attacks. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. [[104]].
3) National spotlight does not only mean that a news was on the front page of newspapers. See additional resources mentioned above. Go through each of them. You will find sufficient evidence for both these statements.
Additionally, I am adding more citations for both these statements in the main article. AgraDEIstudent (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It seems the name "Dayalbagh" refers both to a specific Ashram and to the locality in Agra surrounding that Ashram. Perhaps this should be clarified in the article. NooneEdits (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
This has already been clarified in the article. It is about the locality, not the ashram. AgraDEIstudent (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
To further clarify: The locality called "Soami Bagh" ("Soami's Garden"), the former home of the late Shiv Dayal Singh and the present location of his tomb-shrine, is currently owned and controlled by the twin organizations known as the Radhasoami Satsang Central Administrative Council and the Radhasoami Trust (called "the Council and the Trust" for short). Its next-door neighbor "Dayal Bagh" ("Dayal's Garden") is owned and controlled by the organization Dayalbagh Sabha. Dayal Bagh and its founder-guru Sir Anand Swarup, Kt. were broadcasted to the Western public by Paul Brunton in his famed A Search in Secret India. Sir Anand Swarup received a knighthood for the massive social construction work performed at Dayal Bagh. The two rival organizations, Council/Trust and Dayalbagh, are both alive and functioning. Their major dispute is based on two differing views: The members of Council/Trust claim that Council/Trust is the "parent stock" of Radhasoami (-debatable), and hence must be the ruling entity of Radhasoami. The members of Dayalbagh Sabha feel slighted by the religious hegemony which they feel Council/Trust is imposing. Also, the members of Dayalbagh Sabha want access to the tomb-shrine of the revered Shiv Dayal Singh. In this light, Dayalbagh Sabha organised "SPIRICON 2010", a conference of various organizations who revere Shiv Dayal Singh (boycotted by Council/Trust), to promote mutual respect and to petition access to the tomb-shrine of supreme guru Shiv Dayal Singh. Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Now, I am no expert on this topic. But it seems that the inclusion of this murder has been continuously deleted from this page. The current reason is “removed as an isolated incident.” However, that doesn't meet any of the removal reasons per WP:RVREASONS, so I assume it's best to WP:IMPROVEDONTREMOVE. I would say that this removal is controversial, and there should be discussion (and hopefully some sort of consensus) before it gets removed again.
The explanations on the talk page of reasons for deletion seem to be old, and there seems to be plenty of national Indian news reports covering this incident over the course of many years (as seen above). The event seems significant enough, and it’s not as if the argument is about this event being its own article topic when it is just a single event. However, I personally am not sure if this event belongs on this type of page, since crimes usually aren’t included on the pages of the place they were committed, unless a crime is incredibly notable (e.g. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination under Memphis, Tennessee#History), or the location itself is known for crime (e.g. Baltimore#Crime). Even then, individual crimes don't have their own sections, and they instead tend to have a line or two written in another section.
In summary: I think this event is somewhat notable. I don't know if it belongs here. At the very least, the way it is currently written gives it undue weight, and it should not be under a section called "Controversial", since that's not using a Neutral Point of View (see: WP:SUBARTICLE#Breaking out trivial or controversial sections).
I'll try to change the tone of the article so it is more neutral. And unless anyone has any objections or comments, I think I will either rename the section "Crime," or move it to be under the section "Dayalbagh Educational Institute." I think there should be some discussion about whether or not it belongs better just on the Dayalbagh Educational Institute page or somewhere else on Wikipedia. But overall, I think its inclusion warrants further discussion on the talk page. - Whisperjanes (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)