Talk:2020 Delhi riots

Template:IPA AE

Archives (Index)

2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2022/April 2022/May

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

When 15 Hindus died out of total 53 people which is close to 30 % than how can this be termed as a Anti muslim riots. Stop your propoganda & counting deaths based on religion. Both Hindus & Muslims died & term it as a Anti Humanity riots. 2405:204:A289:7485:CCC0:3D01:E1D2:A0C5 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Because RS say it was?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done You have not proposed a specific change you would like to see to this article. I would suggest that you review the archives of this talk page, as well as WP:BLP, to learn why the article is worded the way it is. Furthermore, all information must be sourced to independent reliable sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Some edits to account Attacks on hindus as well

1)"and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." -> "And caused chiefly by clashes between Hindu and Muslim mobs and protesters". -para 1

2)Removal of "Muslims were marked as targets for violence." -para 2
because this is contradicted by information mentioned in para 3
"on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns."

3)"called for Delhi Police to clear the roads" -> "called for Delhi Police to clear the roads to restore normalcy against riot-like atmosphere" - para 3

4)"In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence; on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails" -> "On the same day, a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails" - para 3"Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence" is opinion not fact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted.", we already say there were hindu victims.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: So if evidence of attacks from both sides exists, then how is it "Hindu Mobs attacking Muslims" only. You should have a more neutral statement.Extorc (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a not what we say, try quoting the whole sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.[12][13] Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows, or set on fire.[14][15][16] The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted." If attacks were made from both sides and both community suffered casualties, then why is it written to be "chiefly" caused by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.Extorc (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Because that is what RS say, based (I suspect) on the fact over twice as many Muslims were killed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Extorc: Please read the extensive archives. Your questions are not original, not by a long shot, they have been already asked again and again and again and answered again and again and again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Extorc: "Jai Shri Ram" (jai=hail; shri= mister or sir) is very much a slogan of Hindu nationalism cooked up by the people from what is today Maharashtra and Gujarat who constituted the bulk of Hindu nationalists in the early days. It was they who came up with this name from their Sanskritized traditions. On the other hand, the people in the Hindi-speaking belt, especially in the United Provinces, the traditional land of Ram, had an intimate relationship with their Lord; children were named after him; he and his consort were a part of morning greetings. Among the greetings were: "jai ram" OR "siya ram" OR "jai jai ram" OR "jay siya ram". See their occurrence in books published before 1925, the year of the founding of the RSS, the first Hindu nationalist organization, in this Google search. On the other hand, a search for jai shri ram" OR "jai shree ram" OR "jai shri rama" OR "jai shree rama" brings up just one Google link, which is a mistake, as it is from the Indian parliament (Lok Sabha) debate of the 1970s. And what do you think it is? It is about a documentary from Gujarat made in 1974 called, "Jai Shree Ram Yane Hanuman Vijaya" produced by "Basant Pictures." The slogan "Jai Shri Ram" is not a native greeting of the land of Rama. It is an artificial one with political overtones. One tell-tale sign is that children can't pronounce it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased

The article is heavily biased and most “sources” are literally opinion pieces form major publications. Quite the opposite of unbiased and fair. Prateekbhatia91 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Prateekbhatia91 Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased and fair, see WP:TRUTH. We only claim that it is possible to verify what is found here, and that it is written with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors- as you have done. If you wish to challenge the reliability of any media outlet, please do so at WP:RSN. If you have specific concerns about the content of this article, please offer your sources and suggestions for changes here. I would urge you to carefully review the archives of this talk page first, as you are hardly the first person to make this claim. Note that much Indian media is heavily biased towards one side or the other, so international media has largely been used. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Court verdict on the events of February 25 2020

In view of the new developments that have happened in India, this page must be updated with the below facts ascertained in a court of law. A Delhi Court has framed charges against 10 men in connection with a case concerning the North East Delhi riots, observing that the object of the unlawful assembly was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties. The Court has framed charges against Mohd. Shahnawaz, Mohd. Shoaib, Shahrukh, Rashid, Azad, Ashraf Ali, Parvez, Mohd. Faisal, Rashid @ Monu and Mohd.Faisal, Rashid @ Monu and Mohd. Tahir under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 436 (Mischief by fire), 452 (House-trespass), 392 (robbery), 427 (mischief) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC.

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-riots-threaten-hindu-community-to-leave-country-charges-framed-187835 References0 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/88325853.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst Read more at: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-riots-court-charges-hindus-fear-7676631/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-riots-court-frames-charges-against-10-says-they-wanted-to-create-fear-among-hindu-community/articleshow/88325853.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And what do you think this will enable us to alter?Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven for startersm it will help correct the prejudicial and erroneous statements in the Article like Muslims were marked as targets for violence.

(ec) What matters is the final outcome of a trial, not determinations made by a court related to the charges. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@331dot - is there a court ruling that supports this statement in the second para of the Article? What is the source of this information? Vast majority of the article is based on references which does not qualify the legal litmus test to be admissible as evidence in a court of law, much less convince the court bench to make such observations after listening to witness accounts. I am only asking you to be open minded about it mention this in the chronology of the Aftermath. We can always revisit this and edit it, when the Court passes it's final judgement.

We are not a court of law.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Thanks for stating the obvious. But can you please tell me why this observation from the court cannot be added to the Aftermath chronology that mentions various incidents, investigations that happened after the Riots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

wp:blp is clear, we can't say someone has committed a crime until they are found guilty. So we can't say "was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties".Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Policy requires us to wait for the outcome of the trial, not how the court is interpreting the charges. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven- The Statement - "Muslims were marked as targets for violence" is in violation of wp:blp too as per your own argument. @331dot this statement should be redacted or edited out till the Court judgement on this matter states this in it's ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

No its not, as no one is named.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven - So can you please point me to who is named in this sentence? "was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You yourself named them. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@331Dot I did not. the FIR and following court proceeding documents named them. I am merely quoting it as-is. Please stop filibustering with such immature arguments for an excuse to refuse this edit.

So they are named, read wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven _ they are named in the court. I did not explicitly as you name them. I am only asking you to quote the observation of the court which does not identify them. I am surprised at the inconsistent usage of wp:blp in the history of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

BUt you do want to say "they did it" which we can't, and with that, I am not going to bother anymore, you have been told why we can't make the edit you want. Ignore us if you wish, but do not try and make it. You will get reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven- I am only quoting the facts. You seem to connecting invisible dots to come to a notion that you are clearly prejudicied about. I am only asking you to quote one specific line in the observation of the court which does not identify them. I am surprised at the inconsistent usage of wp:blp in the history of this article. So which of the 3 golden rules of this golden rule of wp:blp does the court observation violate and the sentence already mentioned in the article does'nt? Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) Let me put the two sentences side by side so that it is easier for you to read. Exhibit A which is already in the article- "Muslims were marked as targets for vioence." Exhibit B- the object of the unlawful assembly was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties. Which you claim to be in violation of wp:blp