Jump to content

Talk:Nupur Sharma: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 150: Line 150:
:{{talkquote|Twitter hashtags like #ShameOnBJP trended after Ms. Sharma’s suspension with many prominent BJP supporters, though not officially members of the BJP, expressing the sentiment that Ms. Sharma and Mr. Kumar had been abandoned by the party at a time when Ms. Sharma had also received death threats over her remarks.}}
:{{talkquote|Twitter hashtags like #ShameOnBJP trended after Ms. Sharma’s suspension with many prominent BJP supporters, though not officially members of the BJP, expressing the sentiment that Ms. Sharma and Mr. Kumar had been abandoned by the party at a time when Ms. Sharma had also received death threats over her remarks.}}
:The less reliable source (compared to The Hindu) you relied on doesn't say "popular politicians" so that is [[WP:SYNTH]] violation too. [[User:Webberbrad007|Webberbrad007]] ([[User talk:Webberbrad007|talk]]) 10:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
:The less reliable source (compared to The Hindu) you relied on doesn't say "popular politicians" so that is [[WP:SYNTH]] violation too. [[User:Webberbrad007|Webberbrad007]] ([[User talk:Webberbrad007|talk]]) 10:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
::: Your rewrite in no way summarises the three quotes included now in the content, or other stuff mentioned in those sources. ''The Hindu'' source that you claim to be following, is not even about Nupur Sharma, and is offhand off-topic. Nobody has claimed to have done a survey of tens of thousands of Nupur Sharma supporters and found them to be non-members of the BJP. Plenty of BJP members including prominent politicians have been found to be among her supporters. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:36, 12 June 2022

WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
WikiProject iconIndia: Politics Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Notability

Fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event (WP:BLP1E ) Venkat TL (talk) 07:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the citations and their dates? Or even read the article? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL and Kautilya3 there is now an article on the controversial remarks (2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy) and further expansion should probably happen there and not here. Expanding this article's section on the controversy risks making it into an article about the event instead of the person, which is bit of a WP:COATRACK.VR talk 01:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: I have redirected here since that article was created just a few hours ago. Zimi09 should always check for existing articles before creating content forks. LearnIndology (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnIndology: this article is about the person, while 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy is about the event(s). That's not a fork (unless you think that Sharma is only notable for this single event). Lets discuss at that article's talk page.VR talk 05:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: We can't waste community's time to discuss content forks, and you need to get consensus on this main page as to why we need to fork it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: a community wide consensus is always stronger than a local consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). Also, you still haven't addressed the central point in this discussion: is Nupul Sharma notable for something other than this one event? If yes, then these are already two different topics: one is about a person whose larger than a single event, the other is about an event which has since become more important than a single person.VR talk 05:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: But you need to describe why that POVFORK is so important. It seems that the content was entirely lifted from this article in violation of WP:COPYRIGHTS without proper attribution. The only thing that was original was addition of more reactions which included some quotefarming. It makes no sense to try retaining a POVFORK like that. LearnIndology (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: It would be nothing more than a waste of time. The notability issue was already resolved when the significant coverage from reliable sources dating before 2022 was added.[1] If you are thinking of redirecting this article to that content fork then I say that it won't work. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: if you think Nupul Sharma is notable outside this single event, then that is evidence that the 2022 controversy is a different topic than Sharma. Two different topics means two different wikipedia articles.VR talk 05:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnIndology: why do you keep saying its a POV fork? Can you explain how it can be a fork when article is about a person and the other is about an event? If there are attribution issues then they can be resolved without blanking the other article.VR talk 05:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Created by copy pasting content from this page without any attribution to this page and the only thing that was original was some extra quotefarming. It's a WP:POVFORK and shouldn't be retained. LearnIndology (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy is clear on this matter: "An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting."[2] Since at least three users have opposed the blanking[3][4][5], not including the user who created the article and others who have edited the article in the meantime, its quite obvious that the blanking here is "controversial". Please use AfD to get consensus.VR talk 05:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That has to do nothing with POVFORK created just hours ago without gaining consensus here as required by policy. LearnIndology (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp and @LearnIndology Please stop edit warring. Naveen Jindal cannot be discussed here. International doplomatic situation cannot be discussed here. The scope of the 2 articles are clearly different. Venkat TL (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: Naveen Jindal is not notable for discussion on Wikipedia and 'international reaction' can be written in few words like "Diplomats from xxx, xxx, xxx, xxx, reacted to the video", instead of posting long quotations about each. Another article talking about the same subject is not needed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I am not being clear enough. Let me try again, THEY ARE NOT SAME SUBJECT. ONE IS A BIO, OTHER IS AN EVENT ARTICLE. "Kanpur Violence: At Least 40 Injured, Police Register 3 FIRs Against 500 People". The Wire. Retrieved 7 June 2022. In addition to my above comment, Kanpur violence and its aftermath cannot be discussed here on Nupur's BIO (Nupur Sharma (politician)). 2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy is the right place to elaborate the entire event. Venkat TL (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Venkat's link, many sources have given significant coverage to what this means for India's trade relations with the GCC (BBC News,ALJazeera, [6][7] etc). That is beyond the scope of this article.VR talk 07:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: You were already clear enough but this time your message is missing relevance. This article got expanded ONLY because of this recent incident and everything was well added here. There was no need to create a new article by duplicating this article and copy-pasting everything there.
Kanpur violence seems notable on its own. We have article on 2016 Kaliachak riots which happened after remarks by Kamlesh Tiwari on Muhammad. You can create a new article for Kanpur violence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Eventually Kanpur violence article will be forked off, right now it is 4-5 lines only. It is right now too short. The controversy article is the right place to discuss all the background and aftermath. Doint everything at Nupur's bio will be stretching it too much. Already the bio is unbalanced, with focus on 1Event. Venkat TL (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: So what? You can create it now. Stub creation is allowed. WP:CFORKING requires consensus and you haven't gained one so far. The article on the controversy is plagued with WP:TOOMUCH if anything. LearnIndology (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LearnIndology of course I understand it can be created now. Both will need same background about the controversy. So once the Violence section has enough content it may be forked. Whether the separate Kanpur violence article exists or not, a section on Kanpur violence will still be needed on the Controversy event article. I respect your opinion and suggestions on the content, "too much" - "too less" etc, but they are subjective and vary from person to person, that is something that needs to be discussed on the talk page for consensus. Venkat TL (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Venkat TL: Discussion was supposed to be done before the content forking. This does not justify parking same content in two places. If you are taking responsibility of the controversy article then you should stubify the section on Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Comments_on_Prophet_Muhammad and only include no more than 1 paragraph that she made comments which attracted controversy and she got expelled. Yes the main link to the article can be retained. We will review in weeks if a separate article is still needed. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp I agree with your suggestion about summarizing the controversy section on Nupur Bio, however I will not do it since I am 100% sure, that Kautilya3 will revert me and then they will file some kind of case somewhere against me. You know what happened in past so I dont need to explain why I am not interfering here. Venkat TL (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced the text because two of you have already agreed to a solution and I will be merging some more parts to the main article since some of the content was omitted. LearnIndology (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest people calm down a bit. There is nothing in policy that says an event page cannot exist when it has its own significant coverage. I know that this is a form of legal POV-pushing, but it cannot be helped. When the dust settles, some form of rationalisation can be done, but not now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, check the above messages where I said "should stubify the section on Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Comments_on_Prophet_Muhammad and only include no more than 1 paragraph that she made comments which attracted controversy and she got expelled. Yes the main link to the article can be retained" and Venkat TL agreed that " I agree with your suggestion about summarizing the controversy section on Nupur Bio." Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnJackSp: Just because two editors decided to do that doesn't make it acceptable. The issue clearly belongs in this article, and that's independent of whether the forked content is kept. Arguably the issue is not important enough for its own article, but it's clearly relevant to this individual here.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but given that there is a separate article on it, the incident can be kept here in a summarised form. No need to have two separate pages sharing most of the same content. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We generally believe and agree that duplication of content on multiple pages is undesirable (due to problems of maintainance, consistency etc.). But that alone cannot be a reason for removing legitimate content from a page. How much detail is needed is a matter of editorial judgment. You cannot claim to have "consensus" without even receiving input from the largest contributor of the page. "Consensus" is expected to be that of all involved editors. And, when they can't agree, input from uninvolved editors should be sought. Here, despite Amakuru having provided his valuable input, you are only displaying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"You cannot claim to have "consensus" without even receiving input from the largest contributor of the page" reeks of WP:OWN and you restored content that has very less or nothing to do with Nupur such as the declaration by Mufti of Oman. It should be removed. The details about the controversy that are targeting more than just Nupur should be covered in the main controversy article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be about the subject. In this case, the controversy is the main reason for notability of this subject and should be mentioned with brief details and a link to the main page of the controversy. However, duplicating the information in lots of detail is WP:TOOMUCH as has been mentioned by other editors here. My two cents. Webberbrad007 (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Change "Alt News denied any responsibility for the reaction the viewers after watching the video clip." to "Alt News denied any responsibility for the reaction by the viewers after watching the video clip." ("by" has been edited in the corrected sentence) EruOfArda (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you EruOfArda. Added. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change that mohammed sallahu alaihewasalm marige 9 year girl. It is not currect information .

203.192.243.5 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikipedia content is written based on WP:Verifiablity and WP:NPOV. There will be no WP:CENSORing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there will be for this, because now there is just a vague explanation for what this was even about. I guess WP:Verifiablity and WP:NPOV don't matter if the wrong people don't like your facts. 24.182.239.226 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are her remarks being deleted? Is there no verifiable source. People come to Wikipedia for information and there's barely anything here on the actual crux of the controversy. SuhitaSaha1205 (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then, please go and ask Times Now to reinstate the video. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was brought to international attention by Muhammad Zubair by this tweet. This is also specified in the write up here. The source is still available and the video shows her comments. Webberbrad007 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Muhammad

There are umpteen sources cited in the article, all of which call him "Prophet Muhammad". That includes CNN/Reuers. Can people please refrain from WP:OR and stick to sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to follow MOS. Even the article on the subject himself (Muhammad) does not put the word Prophet before every mention unlike this article. As such, I think just one mention with the word Prophet to clarify should be enough. Thoughts? Tow (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a rather new phenomenon which I really don't get it. To be fair Jesus isn't repeatedly referred to as being the Son of God or the "prophet Jesus" if you're muslim. Moses isn't referred to as being the "Prophet Moses" and wikipedia doesn't use the name prophet muhammed on his page, so I really don't get the tendency. I mean according to muslims he was a prophet, so on the page it says "In Islamic tradition he is a prophet". But this is never stated in wiki voice. I'm not sure why we'd start here. Also Wiki MOS is against the use of honorifics for Muhammed.[8] Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide full name of "S. A. R. Geelani"

Please provide the full name of "S. A. R. Geelani". A contributor suggested that his name is "Syed Abdul Rahman Geelani". Is that correct? Mksword (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. He is always referred to as SAR Geelani in the sources. We should stick to WP:COMMONNAME and avoid WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mksword why do you think it is important to give the full name? cant see a reason. Venkat TL (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL: For the same reason this article's name is not "N. Sharma". It's preferable to give a more complete name, in order to reduce ambiguity. Mksword (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mksword No it is unnecessary and unhelpful. In India we follow Common names and not necessarily full names. For example, if you write the full name of M. K. Stalin or B. C. Nagesh on Wikipedia pages, readers will get confused. Same for Geelani, I dont even know what his full name is. Venkat TL (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing section on Prophet comment

@LearnIndology This version after your trimming is severely lacking in content. I believe excessive amount of content was removed that left the article lacking. I suggest all participants to discuss here what content can possibly be removed instead of edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post citation

Somebody added this Washington Post citation

What is this supposed to be for? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Ghodbunder, can you explain which source justifies your addition: made in response to the "continuous insult and disregard" towards the Hindu deity Shiva.[1][2] made here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference :0 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference BBC bio was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
this source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-61716241 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghodbunder (talk • contribs) 04:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC) Ghodbunder (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a quotation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean? you should have read the entire article firstGhodbunder (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:V, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3] I am asking for a quotation that demonstrates that it "directly supports" your content. It is a reasonable request, and I am sure the admins will agree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues

I am not editing any article on current S. Asian politics and do not plan to edit this article to any considerable extent either. But, there exists a few glaring issues which might be taken care of by ECP:

  • The text in the controversy section makes for an atrocious reading; it does not flow.
  • Zubair was the one who shone the social media spotlight on Sharma - that is the key point, which is skipped in our article.
  • We are not a newspaper to cover the cycles of denial, affirmation, and miscellaneous antics.
  • We do not need details of each FIR lodged - a single line is enough to cover all.
  • We do not need to cover the response by each country either. Condense to a couple of lines, depending on severeness of rebuke.
  • No useless phrases like which later developed into a controversy etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birth

We need better sources for birth verification - place and date/year. OneIndia is hardly an RS and BusinessStandard ref doesn't verify it — DaxServer (t · m · c) 06:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

refer election affidavit Venkat TL (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be a public record - a primary source that should not be used WP:BLPPRIMARY ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, that is the most reliable source out there. Not sure what wiki bureaucracy has to do with it. Can you please explain the problem without using Wiki abbreviations. Venkat TL (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to accept an election affidavit as reliable corroboration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of OpIndia

Opindia website mentions her as the Editor, OpIndia.com since October 2017 as .Want to add this to the lead.She is the Editor has not resigned as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Nupur Sharma. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nupur J. Sharma is a different person the disamg has been fixed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary suspension pending investigation

Please clarify that this is "Temporary suspension pending investigation", basically hogwash till the matter is in news. This is standard modus operandi in BJP with several members getting their membership reinstated and suspension revoked along with getting party ticket for election in a few months. Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add an efn footnote if you can find a good source. Suspension is always assumed to be "temporary" or time limited. I have seen "six years" mentioned in some places, but I don't think it is solid information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV in lead

"Described as brash and articulate" possible WP:NPOV violation in the lead?

I know it's cited as being from a BBC article, but I think it needs to be clear such that no one can infer that Wikipedia is taking a position. (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 13:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:NPOV is this supposed to be a violation of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reverting generally reliable source "The Hindu" per WP:RSPSS

Kautilya3 you have reverted me twice here and here and made an accusation of "whitewashing" for sourcing content from a more reliable source. Please explain your action. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am astounded by how boldly editors are breaking policies in this article and then clog up talk in such righteous tone. The entire sentence in the edit you restored twice is directly copied from Hindu and you're bringing it to talk as if the revert was wrong? Come on. Hemantha (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is retaining the wording but isn't exactly the same, though I agree the difference is minor. This is a fair critique and the wording can be updated. However, that wasn't the objection that was raised for the revert. Also, there is a requirement for editors to WP:AGF which seemed strangely missing. -- Webberbrad007 (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Webberbrad007, please don't gaslight us. I didn't revert a "source". I reverted your free-wheeling rewrite of the existing content with no explanation. Hee is the existing content. Please tell us what part of it needs to be modified and why.

The BJP supporters, including some popular politicians, rallied behind Nupur Sharma and criticised the party and the government for buckling under international pressure. Hashtags such as "#ShameOnBJP" and "#ISupportNupurSharma" trended on Twitter in her support.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Sheikh Saaliq (AP) (6 June 2022), "Muslim nations slam India over insulting remarks about Islam", The Wasington Post, Modi's party also faced anger from some of its own supporters, but it was for a different reason. Many Hindu nationalists posted comments on social media saying the government was buckling under international pressure.
  2. ^ Geeta Pandey (7 June 2022), "Nupur Sharma: The Indian woman behind offensive Prophet Muhammad comments", BBC News, But since her suspension, support has also been growing for the beleaguered former BJP spokesperson - hashtags such as #ISupportNupurSharma and #TakeBackNupurSharma have trended daily on social media, with tens of thousands praising her.
  3. ^ "Right-wing ecosystem turns on BJP for suspending Nupur Sharma", The Telegraph (India), 7 June 2022, While many young BJP cadres and leaders expressed their disgust privately at the action against Sharma, Delhi leader Kapil Mishra — accused of delivering hate speeches in the run-up to the February 2020 riots — expressed his displeasure in public.

Even if we take your word that you were "replacing the existing source with RSPSS", there was no explanation of why this was being done. The WP:ONUS is on you to argue for your revised content (and, at the same time, the deletion of the existing content). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why don't you stick to WP:AGF and stop imputing motives. This isn't a one-off slip by you now.
The change was to reflect the content from a better source. The meaning wasn't materially changed. The hashtag and the support was part of that wording, though it was too similar to the wording from the source, which was a fair critique as I have said before.
Your wording has a WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issue because it implies that "The BJP supporters" rallied, not just "some". In addition, The Hindu wording is in conflict with what you had mentioned. The Hindu states

Twitter hashtags like #ShameOnBJP trended after Ms. Sharma’s suspension with many prominent BJP supporters, though not officially members of the BJP, expressing the sentiment that Ms. Sharma and Mr. Kumar had been abandoned by the party at a time when Ms. Sharma had also received death threats over her remarks.

The less reliable source (compared to The Hindu) you relied on doesn't say "popular politicians" so that is WP:SYNTH violation too. Webberbrad007 (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your rewrite in no way summarises the three quotes included now in the content, or other stuff mentioned in those sources. The Hindu source that you claim to be following, is not even about Nupur Sharma, and is offhand off-topic. Nobody has claimed to have done a survey of tens of thousands of Nupur Sharma supporters and found them to be non-members of the BJP. Plenty of BJP members including prominent politicians have been found to be among her supporters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nupur_Sharma&oldid=1092758027"