Jump to content

Talk:2020 Delhi riots: 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
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,549,255 edits
Line 434: Line 434:
:see all the other threads about this above this one, we are not repeating ourselves.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:see all the other threads about this above this one, we are not repeating ourselves.[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' please provide [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 11:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

:: Dear [[User talk:Kautilya3]] Please find the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]] that support the change https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075 I hope NDTV is not a disputed sources as it is not just popular within India rather across the world with eminent columnist and wider coverage of Indian News at its best. Thanks again and I agree with you that for any user to request for change there must be reliable sources to support it. Good Day!


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 ==
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 ==

Revision as of 06:11, 4 August 2020

Template:IPA AE

1RR now in effect

Please be mindful, everyone. El_C 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can this fact be included in a new section or mentioned somewhere in the article. Zikrullah (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is noted in in the article whenever one edits, in Template:Editnotices/Page/2020 Delhi riots, as well as at the top of this talk page in Template:IPA AE. El_C 18:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles)

"POV-embattled," by the way, means battlements of POV dot, litter, even crisscross the topic. This is long, but please bear with me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stage 1

The lead which is locked in the article right now is a summary of the topic, not the main body. It has due weight and overall reliability. In Stage 1, we have cited and summarized content from newspapers:

  • (a) which have correspondents based in India.
  • (b) whose articles (which are of interest to us) have bylines (i.e. the name of the correspondents shows up below the title of their story) and
  • (c) which are published in liberal democracies where there is no significant POV around this issue. (i.e. South Asian newspapers have been ruled out at this stage.)

We have cited from: NYTimes, Washington Post, Independent, Guardian, Times (London), and Le Monde. (There are obviously others as well, which we did not use. I will make a list elsewhere of newspapers which have correspondents based in India.)

By definition, the lead will not have all the notable details. The sources it cites may not have all the notable details either, because their main audience (an international one) may not be conversant with, or generally interested in, all local details. For expansion, therefore, you will need to look at the reliable high-quality Indian sources whose perspectives match the one in the lead, which now serves as a template of DUE.

Stage 2

In my view, for recent Indian events just six national newspapers in India are enough for fleshing out the details:

The Statesman (Kolkata, founded 1875/1817), The Hindu (Chennai, founded 1878), The Free Press Journal (Mumbai, founded 1928), The Indian Express (Delhi, founded 1933), Deccan Chronicle (Hyderabad, founded 1938), and The Telegraph (Kolkata) (founded 1982)

  • Question: Why bother to write such a lead in the first place?
  • Answer: Because if we don't, we will not have a DUE summary of the topic against which to measure the neutrality of our additions. Later, when a topic becomes older, text-books, other encyclopedias, reviews of literature, and so forth, become available for determining DUE, but for now, there is nothing else. Also, as the lead is what people read first, and sometimes, they read no further: it is important for it to be comprehensive and neutral, especially when the rest of the article is not.
  • Question: Why start with only these six Indian newspapers?
  • Answer: Because these newspapers have old traditions of excellence and independence. As print newspapers based in different regions of India, they necessarily have to summarize—in the multi-ethnic Indian context—in a manner that local or digital newspapers do not.

As an example, consider the "peace marches" in the New York Times story, which have been paraphrased in the lead as:

After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu politicians paraded alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims.[1]

References

  1. ^ Gettleman, Jeffrey; Yasir, Sameer; Raj, Suhasini; Kumar, Hari (12 March 2020), "'If We Kill You, Nothing Will Happen': How Delhi's Police Turned Against Muslims", The New York Times, Photographs by Loke, Atul, retrieved 13 March 2020, The religiously mixed and extremely crowded neighborhoods in northeastern Delhi that were on fire in late February have cooled. But some Hindu politicians continue to lead so-called peace marches, trotting out casualties of the violence with their heads wrapped in white medical tape, trying to upend the narrative and make Hindus seem like the victims, which is stoking more anti-Muslim hatred.

There are stories about one peace march on February 29 in:

These should, therefore, be used to further expand the topic of peace marches, at least one peace march. Similarly, determining whether there were other marches, before or after, will require examining these sources for other dates.

Stage 3
After the main body is fleshed out in such fashion, the lead should be rewritten by summing up the main body. No footnotes, let alone extended quotes, will then be required in the lead unless a statement is highly controversial. But for now, they are essential.

In the language of artificial intelligence, the stages are 1: The lead is written using sources that are relatively low-res (or high-level (OED: high-level: relating to or concerned with a subject, system, or phenomenon as a whole, rather than its particular details.), or macro-level). 2. The main body is fleshed out using sources that are high-res (low-level, micro-level), but in keeping with the content of stage 1 (i.e. DUE). 3. The lead is rewritten as a low-res/high-level version of the main body.

Good luck, @SerChevalerie, NedFausa, SharabSalam, Kautilya3, Slatersteven, and DIYeditor: Pinging also: @RegentsPark, Abecedare, DougWeller, El C, Anachronist, Drmies, Johnbod, Bishonen, and Vanamonde93: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though you haven't pinged me, I have been keeping this talk page in my watchlist. You did very well! Thank you, Fowler&fowler. --KartikeyaS (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's List of foreign newspapers with correspondents in India

Dear @SerChevalerie, NedFausa, SharabSalam, Kautilya3, Slatersteven, DIYeditor, and KartikeyaS343: Pinging also: @RegentsPark, Abecedare, DougWeller, El C, Anachronist, Drmies, Johnbod, Bishonen, and Vanamonde93: Collapsed below is a list I had mentioned above. It is much bigger than I had thought, and there are still some (Haarets, Jerusalem Post, in Israel, South African newspapers) which I have not examined. Still, used judiciously, it may prove useful in the future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have not added the links/urls for newspapers that rigorously require a subscription, only the titles of the stories. (It is easier to search the title on Google.) If someone wants small blurbs from them, I'm happy to provide them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North America

Newspapers and other media in the US and Canada with correspondents in India
  • The Washington Post. (Subscrip. Req.) Joana Slater (India bureau chief), Neha Masih, Tania Dutta
  • "Worst communal violence in Delhi in decades leaves 17 dead as Trump visits India," February 25, by Slater, Masih, and Dutta
  • "Death toll passes 30 in Delhi violence as Modi issues plea for calm," February 26, Slater, Masih.
  • "Criticism of police grows after mob violence kills nearly 40 in India’s capital," February 27, by Slater
  • "Criticism of police grows after mob violence kills nearly 40 in India’s capital," February 27, Slater
  • "What Delhi’s worst communal violence in decades means for Modi’s India," March 2, Slater and Masih
  • The Wall Street Journal Bill Spindle (South Asia bureau chief); Vibhuti Agarwal (Commodities Reporter); Krishna Pokharel (Reporter)
  • "India’s Ruling Party, Government Slammed Over Delhi Violence," (subscription required; Pokharel, Agarwal, Spindle, February 26)
  • "India Begins Probe of Clashes That Left 38 Dead," (subscription required; Agarwal, Spindle, February 27)
  • The Christian Science Monitor (Subscrip. Not Req.) An American newspaper with a notable record of international reporting. Farhad Shah, India contributor
  • Associated Press (Subscrip. Not Req.)
  • Correspondents: Emily Schmall (South Asia correspondent) Sheikh Saaliq, Ashok Sharma
Sometimes the same article is carried with bylines by some newspapers and without by others:
  • Stories carried without byline by:
  • Toronto Star does not have a correspondent in Delhi, and generally uses AP
  • The Globe and Mail, Toronto, also does not have a correspondent in Delhi and uses AP and Reuters.
  • CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System, United States), correspondent: Arshad Zagar

United Kingdom and Ireland

Newspapers and other media in the UK and Ireland with correspondents in India
  • The Times (Subscrip. Req.) Hugh Tomlinson, South Asia correspondent, based in Delhi; Saurabh Sharma, Delhi
  • "Donald Trump’s visit to India marred by deadly violence against Muslims," February 26, by Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma
  • "Hindu mobs threaten to purge Delhi of Muslims," February 27, Hugh Tomlinson
  • "Heroes rise in a city torn apart by riots," March 3, Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma
  • "Anti-Modi protesters named on billboards," March 11, Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma
  • "Anti-Modi protesters ordered to sign ‘good behaviour’ pledge," March 17, Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma
  • Guardian, Hannah Ellis-Peterson, Delhi correspondent.
  • " ‘Targeted for being Muslim’: Inside the mosque burnt by rioters in worst Delhi violence for decades," February 26, by Adam Withnall
  • "Delhi riots: Death toll rises to 27 with mosque set on fire in deadliest violence in capital in decades," February 26, by Adam Withnall.
  • "Delhi riots: Dust settles after worst religious violence in decades as locals demand accountability," February 27, by Adam Withnall.
  • "UN human rights chief launches unprecedented legal action against Indian government over citizenship protests," March 3, by Adam Withnall
  • "Delhi riots: Violence that killed 53 in Indian capital ‘was anti-Muslim pogrom’, says top expert," March 7, by Adam Withnall
  • "The betrayal felt in the still-recovering areas hit by the Delhi riots makes coronavirus more of a threat," March 15, Pyall Dhar
  • "Why an Islamic gathering in Delhi has taken centre stage in India’s coronavirus debate," March 31, Adam Withnall
  • Financial Times, (Subscrip. Req.) Amy Kazmin South Asia Bureau Chief, based in Delhi; Stephanie Findlay, South Asia correspondent.
  • "New Delhi religious riots claim 17 lives in two days of violence," February 25, by Amy Kazmin
  • "Thousands of paramilitary police deployed in New Delhi after riots," February 26, by Amy Kazmin and Stephanie Findlay
  • "Narendra Modi woos world leaders in a city haunted by violence," February 26, by Amy Kazmin
  • "India riots: ‘We were attacked because we are Muslim’," February 28, by Stephanie Findlay and Amy Kazmin
  • Economist (Subscrip. Req.) (does not have bylines by tradition, only the location of the reporter)
  • "More than a dozen killed, hundreds injured as New Delhi riots overshadow Trump visit," February 25, Devjyot Ghosal, Manoj Kumar, New Delhi
  • "A mob out for blood: India's protests pit Hindus against Muslims," February 26, Danish Siddiqui and Devjyot Ghosal, New Delhi
  • "Death toll rises to 32 in religious violence in India's capital," February 27, by Aftab Ahmed, New Delhi
  • "A Delhi neighborhood divided by a highway and now hatred," February 27, by Aftab Ahmed, New Delhi
  • "Indian lawmakers scuffle over citizenship riots where 41 died," March 2 by Alisdair Pal and Aftab Ahmed, New Delhi
  • "More 'apartheid cities' seen in India after deadly Delhi riots," March 5, by Rina Chandran
  • "Delhi's displaced scrape a living after deadly riots," March 4, Alisdair Pal and Devjyot Ghosal, New Delhi
  • Irish Times, (Subscrip. Not Req.) Rahul Bedi, Contributor, New Delhi

Europe

Newspapers and other media in Europe with correspondents in India
  • Le Monde, (Subscrip. Req.) Sophie Landrin, India correspondent
  • "Trump célèbre la tolérance indienne quand des heurts intercommunautaires embrasent New Delhi," ("Trump celebrates Indian tolerance when cross-community clashes set fire to New Delhi") 25 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
  • "Inde : New Delhi en proie à de violents conflits intercommunautaires" ("India: New Delhi plagued by violent inter-community conflicts"), 26 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
  • "A New Delhi, trois jours de terreur" ("In New Delhi, three days of terror"), 27 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
  • "Attaques contre les musulmans à New Delhi : « J’ai pensé que j’allais mourir »" ("Attacks on Muslims in New Delhi: 'I thought I was going to die' "), 04 mars 2020, Sophie Landrin

Asia and Australia

Newspapers in Asia and Australia with correspondents in India
  • The Australian, generally carries articles from The Times, London. (Hugh Tomlinson, See above.)
  • The Age Melbourne, Ashok Sharma (AP)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Support
Oppose

OI FOWLER NOOOOO!! NedFausa (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: in registering my opposition, I used the verbatim wording prescribed here. If I was misled, please advise. NedFausa (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per wp:consensus "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.", you have to actually make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, WP:BLP applies here - and this is not a discussion page for the riots

If multiple reliable sources discuss someone's activities and you want them added to the article, bring them here and suggest your wording.

DO NOT use this page to discuss them (or in fact the riots) - this isn't a forum, this page exists only to discuss improvements to the article. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we cannot call people terrorists are murders on this page unless they've been convicted

I'm removing them from the record when I can as WP:BLP violations. If I catch someone doing it twice I'll block them at least from this talk page and the article. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should have have some banner at the top or something (not that I think it will matter, as this is all about POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on police reports and a note that Wikipedia is not a place to carry on real world conflicts

The policy that we enforce most strictly is our policy on recently deceased and living persons. WP:BLP. Part of that policy, WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

This policy applies not just to the article but to this talk page. Just to strengthen it, I'm putting the article (and talk page) under our BLP discretionary sanctions.

I hope this explains to all the new editors why Administrators such as myself have been taking the actions that we have taken and will continue to take. If anyone continues to break our policy either here or the article after warnings, they can expect to be blocked from editing at all, or banned from any pages in the sanction area. Too many editors are treating the article and talk page in a WP:BATTLEGROUND matter. Wikipedia is not here to WP:right great wrongs. Probably something like this belongs at the top of the page, although too many new editors probably don't read anything there. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic (being euphemistic) article

Happened to glance through the article. It's so bad, it forced me to WP editing section after several years and post this remark. It can more rightfully belong to trashpedia than wikipedia.

I've, in fact, taken a snapshot of the article in the shape it is as of today (and locked further till 27-Sep-2020), as a memoir of WP spreading fake news, and later, to use as an artifact to share on social media, when the extent of fake news (includes 1. fiction presented as fact, 2. fact presented as fiction, 3. facts suppressed given they are not conducive to POV; most media portals when proliferating fake news restrict them to the 3rd, but this unabashedly engages in the first two also) in the article becomes so untenable it can't be supported despite 'cancel culture' and 'escapism' of WP editors and admins by citing one-liner "read WP:blah" when they're reminded they've collected trash, though supported by 200 POV references. isoham (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ISoham Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources. If those sources are in error, you will need to take that up with them. If you feel they should not be considered reliable sources, take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Feel free to offer any reliable sources to support changes you feel are needed to the article- but you should review prior postings on this page as you are not the first person to make this sort of comment. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected on Wikipedia. That a source might be biased does not itself disqualify it from being considered a reliable source, as long as they have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. This even has passionate people on each side, with views based in ancient religions. The dispute will not be solved here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what facts do we suppress (please read wp:blp before answering)?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ISoham: if you'd like people to write longer "this is why" reasoning they can, but the 1-liners are used to avoid dropping in the entire policy each time. The sourcing policies are comprehensive reasoning that distils literally millions of words of discussion. So instead of moaning about "one-liners", read them and respond in line with that. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: You asked, "what facts do we suppress"? I have already given two examples above. The fact is, police investigation is now revealing that the riots were planned, primarily by muslims. Yet, the very first line of the wiki article begins with a lie, that the riots were *caused* by Hindu mob. This now a disproven blatant lie. At best it can be presented as opinion. Given that the events are still under investigation, it is highly dishonest to begin the article with a statement like that. And despite my request, the changes have not been made, even though I have provided the relevant sources. This is how you guys are suppressing facts. Ultimately, the credibility of Wikipedia will suffer, just like the credibility of Western leftist media already has.
The police investigation has not been tried in court yes, so its not a fact, its an accusation. RS all say what we say, and until RS say otherwise we reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ISoham, I don't see any edit requests from you, so you can't accuse editors of not incorporating your changes when you haven't listed them out formally. Nor do I see you citing any reliable sources. In any case, Wikipedia Talk pages are not a forum, so unless you have something significant to contribute to the discussion wrt improvement of the article, this discussion is closed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a circular logic which is being used every time I try to reduce bias in this article (especially in the lead). Only certain biased articles in NYT, Guardian are being used. It is beyond belief that for how an incident happening in India, someone publishing in USA is more reliable. Also, every attempt to reduce bias by citing other reliable sources (in the lead) is scuttled and finally when run out of arguments, they say that it is fixed and no change allowed. Most of the people reading this article know that this article is trash and is written with a certain agenda. For example, in the lead, it is included that Hindus were shouting "Jai Shri Ram". But Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been pushed down so that Hinduphobic narrative remains. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With a controversial subject, especially in cases like this with a dispute with animosity between two ancient religions, reporting from outside the area can be more dispassionate. In any event, thus far, no independent reliable sources have been offered; feel free to propose changes supported by reliable sources here- keeping in mind policies like WP:BLP and the fact that primary sources are not what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, reporting from inside is far more dispassionate than the rabid Hinduphobic articles of Washington Post, NYT and The Guardian. I have proposed changes several times, with reliable sources, but to no avail. Not just all other view points have been excluded. There is blatant violation of WP:NPOV e.g.

a.) Regarding neutral tone : "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article". In this article, a consistent Hinduphobic tone is adopted.

b) WP:NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." There are several instances in the lead where opinions are presented as facts

i.) In the lead it is mentioned that "Muslims were marked as target for violence" while in the reference article in article in the link it is just in quote attribution. Some resident named Praveen said 'We were targeted because we were muslims'. But the lead mentions it as an overarching fact. This line should be removed from the lead.

ii.)Again in the lead "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised". All 3 sources quoted present it as in quote attribution to someone's statement or as an example case. But the article presents it as an overarching fact.

I have several other examples. But let us just test this out. Shall we remove the two lines because they violate WP:NPOV

1. "Muslims were marked as target for violence" and

2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, as NPOV also make it clear we do not give false POV. The claims are sourced to high quality independent sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin.cba, we have entertained your repeated circular discussions multiple times before. If you have nothing new to say then please refrain from commenting on threads over here. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I read the entire conversation here and the main article. I only have one point that this main article pronounces a judgment against the Hindu community right in the first line of the article, to quote "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." It has a social implication. It comes right on top of Google. And it is backed by only 2 news articles. In first, the author is quoting an ex-IPS officer, but NOT writing explicitly how the ex-IPS came to that conclusion? what information is he having to claim such a thing, "They not only openly sided with the Hindu mobs attacking Muslims but also used brutal force against them". In the second article, the line which comes closest in claiming the culpability of Hindus is, "witnesses to the violence saw something different. As mobs swept through neighborhoods, burning homes and killing people, the police often stepped back if the crowd was Hindu. But when it was Muslims, witnesses said, the police could be vicious". This too is an anecdotal claim, plus it shows the biasness of police, and not who attacked whom. I am writing this so that moderators consider my preposition that, please explain the article and do not pass judgments when there is no evidence in the public domain. India, especially northern India, is slightly more communally charged. Unverified claims can tear the social fabric here. Please do not pass judgment. ---- Ritwik.m07 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie Can you quote, where I have repeated any discussion. Previously, I had quoted different sources to expand POV. Here, I am not asking to change POV, nor asking to quote different sources. Here, what is being claimed as fact is not even claimed as fact by RS quoted. Anyway, I have already received a threat from on my talk page to drop it. Slatersteven. Shows plenty !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", so yes wee have RS saying it, do you have RS saying this is not ture?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritwik.m07, please also see the archives of this Talk page in detail, and also the other pinned sections of this Talk page. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SerChevalerie All I am saying is, I don't have any RS that claims Muslims attacked Hindus first. Some RS have written it but as testimonies, but testimonies are not reliable in themselves. Nor I have found any RS which claims, 'who attacked whom first is still known'. Losses were on both sides, yes in terms of numbers Muslims suffered more than Hindus; these are facts, and it is okay to report the facts. But the first paragraph claims something which is an interpretation of facts (by RS), and not a fact in itself. All I am asking is, consider the social impact of the first paragraph of this article. The memory of these riots is still fresh and such judgments (even coming from RS) can worsen the situation. Peace out. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)::[reply]
[1] "The violence erupted in February after the leaders from the governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their supporters attacked peaceful sit-ins", yes the source says hindos attacked first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither BJP is representative of all Hindus, nor the people at peaceful sit-ins were only muslims. This attack was politically motivated and not based on religious grounds. The riots happened on religious grounds.---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And not all British rules India, that does not mean it was not British ruled.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"British" had a representative i.e. monarch+PM who claimed that India is a colony of Britain. Hence, India was British ruled. Contrary to this case, where neither BJP is representative of Hindus, nor any of its members are. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But they are Hindu, but would you rather it said "nationalist Hindu mobs", so to make it clear it was not every Hindu in India?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They attacked peaceful protesters not because they are Hindu. They attacked because they wanted to hurt anyone who went against their favorite political party. So I would rather say, "violent mobs" or "politically motivated violent mobs", just to clear that their nationalism or religion had nothing to do with their extreme actions/views. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RS say they were Hindu mobs attacking Muslim women, we do not use wp:or to write articles (or would you like me to write what I think of them?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not about how you perceive that Al-Jazeera article. This is about how you write this specific article, especially the first paragraph. Simply stating "caused chiefly by violent mobs attacking Muslims", would be very helpful in adding more neutrality to this article. ---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik.m07, please read the full first paragraph, instead of simply quoting sentences out of context. If you have no further comments than taking this discussion in circles (as I said, read the archives and the first section of this Talk page), then I am consiering this discussion closed. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Interfaith solidarity section

Replace the following line in Interfaith solidarity section:

Akali Dal leader and former MLA, Majinder Singh Sirsa, opened up his gurudwara to those seeking shelter amidst the rioting.

by

Sikh community opened up its gurudwaras to those seeking shelter amidst the rioting.

According to the source cited [2], Majinder Singh Sirsa informed them that Sikh community has opened up its gurudwaras. He was not the one who opened it up. Secondly to say that Majinder Singh Sirsa, opened up "his" gurudwara suggests that it is his personal gurudwara which is not true as gurudwara belongs to Sikh community as a whole and not to him. Jasksingh (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasksingh,  Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


SerChevalerie Proposing the following updates in this section:

... Muslims visited their Hindu neighbors and assured their safety.[39]

On the night of February 25, Muslim residents of Indira Vihar protected a Shiv Temple from being vandalized.[1]

In Chand Bagh, one of the worst-affected localities in the riot-hit North East Delhi, one Muslim man rushed two of his Hindu friends in his small hut to protect them from frenzy mob outside.[2] Moreover, a group of Muslim residents stood guard outside the home where a Hindu couple was getting married. [3]

Muslims in Mustafabad confronted and sent back a violent mob which came to attack Hindus in their neighborhood.[4][5][6]

In Shiv-vihar, a Hindu resident sheltered a Muslim couple with their children and dressed them up as Hindus. [7]

Locals in Yamuna Vihar in northeast Delhi formed a human chain to escort school children to safety. [8]

The teen from Khajoori Khas (who saw his friends clashing as rioters) was saved, fed, and comforted by Muslim neighbors.[9]

A Hindu man volunteered to remove the Hanuman statue which was placed on the entry of mosque, along with a saffron flag which was hoisted on one of the minaret of the mosque. [10]

... gathered in front of the Sacred Heart Cathedral, New Delhi, to pray in solidarity.[142]

In the aftermath, a Muslim community in Saharanpur decided to end a 10-year old land dispute with Sikh community out of gratitude for the help given by Sikhs to the people affected by the recent violence in Northeast Delhi. [11] In Punjab, a Muslim groom wore a traditional Sikh turban to express gratitude towards Sikh community for rescuing Muslims during riots in north-east Delhi. [12]

References

  1. ^ "Muslims protect Shiv Temple during violence in NE Delhi". business-standard. ANI. February 28, 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  2. ^ Singh, Mausami (February 27, 2020). "Where sanity prevailed: Story of hope when Delhi rioters ran amok". India Today. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  3. ^ "'Muslim Brothers Protecting Me Today': Hindu Bride Weds in Delhi". Quint. 28 Feb 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  4. ^ "Delhi riots: Muslim neighbours brave mob wrath to save Hindus in minority-dominated area". The New India Express. 27 February 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  5. ^ "Not going anywhere; we are safe amidst Muslim neighbours, says lone Brahmin family in Mustafabad". ANI. 28 February 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  6. ^ Khan, Hera; Alam, Mohd Irshad (27 Feb 2020). "Amid violence in northeast Delhi, Muslims in Mustafabad vow to protect their Hindu neighbours". Quint. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  7. ^ Mishra, Sfoorti (February 29, 2020). "Delhi violence: Saved by Hindu neighbour, recalls Muslim man". The Free Press Journal. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  8. ^ KC, Archana (26 February 2020). "Delhi: Yamuna Vihar Residents Form Human Chain Around School Kids, Escort Them To Safety". India Times. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  9. ^ Bhandari, Hemani (Februrary 29, 2020). "Delhi violence: Hindu teen recounts how Muslim neighbors stood guard for him". Hindu. Retrieved 29 July 2020. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Sharma, Betwa (5 March 2020). "Delhi Hero: Meet The Hindu Man Who Removed The Saffron Flag From A Burnt Mosque". Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
  11. ^ Menon, Aditya (02 Mar 2020). "#Goodnews: Sikhs, Muslims End 10-Year-Old Saharanpur Land Dispute". Quint. Retrieved 29 July 2020. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ "Muslim ties turban on his wedding to honour Sikhs for helping Delhi violence victims". India Today. IANS. 8 March 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.

Ritwik.m07 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik.m07, most of this is WP:RECENTISM. Try to rework this after reading WP:10YEARTEST. Also, try to use better quality sources, as mentioned in § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles). Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SerChevalerie WP:RECENTISM mostly deals with "long-term significance of the information" or "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?". This is an article about communal riots. If in the long-term, instances highlighting communal harmony will not be relevant, then I doubt why the section of "Interfaith Solidarity" even exists. Moreover, can you point out why the currently mentioned things in that section is NOT WP:RECENTISM but the above addition is? And regarding the sources, out of given 12, the given article already cites 11 of them (assuming reliable). The one which is not cited is The Free Press Journal, which is mentioned as reliable in Fowler&fowler's section you mentioned.
My intention to add to this section of "Interfaith solidarity" was to counter the communal tension this article is knowingly/unknowingly creating by blindly quoting interpretation of facts by foreign publishers, as facts. So can you please elaborate, how can I "rework" this? Do language needs change? or what? Also, a second professional opinion would be helpful Fowler&fowler Doug Weller Slatersteven ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ritwik.m07, the reason that this article causes communal tension is because it was a riot. Throwing a few instances of "interfaith solidarity" in this article won't fix the situation on the ground, unfortunately.
Regarding your concerns on the existing section having WP:RECENTISM, yes, I wholeheartedly agree. We had a discussion here on removing it entirely, if not trimming it down significantly. However, we could not achieve consensus.
Regarding the sources, we intend to eventually rewrite the entire article using higher quality sources. Call it a matter of opinion, but since we've used them the article's WP:NPOV has significantly increased.
I'm not completely dismissing your proposal. But instances like the ones you mentioned about Saharanpur and Punjab are definitely not going to work here, since we intend to cover only the area of North East Delhi. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this accusation true?

https://twitter.com/theskindoctor13/status/1289170058183245824

"They used Rana Ayyub's opinion article in Forbes as citation to call Delhi riot a "state sponsored pogrom of MuxIims"."

opinion piece is not reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:48E:FB86:11FD:E60A:F205:A061 (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read our article, not some one on Twitter. We do not say this, it is false.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased article

One sided narrative of a very complex issue is not acceptable. Only limited and historically left leaning news outlets have been used for reference. Srijan K (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ask the RS to do better reporting, not us for using it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Srijan K, this Talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have any specific suggestions to make towards the improvement of the article, then please go ahead. Else, your comments are opinions are not welcome here. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Srijan K (ec) See the numerous other prior discussions that raise the point you are attempting to make. If you have specific changes you would like to propose, please do so, keeping in mind that any changes must be sourced to independent reliable sources. Also be aware of the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
Please note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are provided so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to their bias. This event has passionate feelings based in ancient religions on each side, and we will not solve any religious strife here on Wikipedia, this is why we focus on the sources. If you have issues with bias in the sources, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent status of case shows that the Wiki article's alleged perpetrators in riot are biased. Please refer more references from recent ongoing case to have audience know about it. Spaceriot Virtual (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the Wiki article's alleged perpetrators in riot are biased"? Ignoring that, we can refer to the court case (if that's what you mean) if the case details are readily available on the internet. If the court case is not written about, you can add that to the article or create an Edit Request. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ

Since this article is one of the articles that have been continuously targeted by OpIndia (RSP entry), 45.251.33.234 suggested in User talk:Newslinger § FAQs on all controversial Hinduism-related pages that we add an FAQ to the top of this talk page, similar to what is seen on the top of Talk:OpIndia and Talk:Jai Shri Ram. FAQs can be useful for addressing questions and arguments that are repeatedly raised despite having already been answered. Would an FAQ be helpful on this talk page?

(Note: FAQs are not visible on mobile versions of Wikipedia.) — Newslinger talk 06:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think on this article it would be a waste of effort. See all the pinned posts above on this Talk page, and then see the number of edit requests we get that say the same thing. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We need to find some way to stop having to answer the same question 15 times a week.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent developments

Need some non-biased editors to add information on recent developments and rewrite the lopsided lead section as well: [3] [4] [5]. The threads above are a joke; I guess the article will continue to conveniently skip vital facts related to the real perpetrator (He who must not be named). 117.206.88.12 (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, now this is a serious turning point in the case. But in any case we have to say that Tahir Hussain "has confessed", and not "is guilty" until the court gives its verdict, as per Wikipedia policy and common sense. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note her confessed to starting something a day after the riots started.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ex AAP MLA Tahir Hussain has admitted to Delhi Police for organising Delhi Riots

Please update article as Tahir Husain has admitted to his crime to Delhi Police in details. It should be added as below:

Tahir Hussain, suspended AAP Leader, one of the prime initial suspect has finally admitted his crime of organizing Delhi Riots. He took his pistol before the incident from Police station and gathered lot of acids, glass and other items for planning the riots. This was planned in sync with US President Donald Trump's visit to India. He gathered and planned to incite mob who were participating in anti-CAA.

Sources: https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075?pfrom=home-topscroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"On 24 February 2020, at about 1:30 pm we started throwing stones," Tahir Hussain told police." the rioting started on the 23rd, this is why we should only use non Indian sources.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put summaries of police interrogations in articles. When and if this person is convicted in a court of law and not the court of public opinion, we can talk. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, he said "On February 4, in Abu Fazal Enclave, I met Khalid Saifi for planning the riots. It was decided to provoke people sitting on the anti-CAA strike. Khalif Saifi said that something big has to be done at the time of Donald Trump's visit so that the government kneel". So he planned something violent around the time of the riots. While it does not confirm that he started it, the statement must be taken into consideration regarding his involvement in the riots. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Save that for his trial, not this article. Please read WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which does not mean he planned THOSE riots. If he had started them he would have...acted first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I said was while it does not confirm that he started it, the statement must be taken into consideration regarding his involvement in the riots. If it is relevant (I am not sure whether it is), you may add it, or else you may not. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) on how to incorporate this information into the article. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

The information in this article is wrong. It wasnt hindus that started the riots, but muslims that started it while hindus retaliated to save their lives. 2409:4043:91:6255:2352:21CC:96F9:C198 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done Please propose what specific changes you want to see, cited to independent reliable sources, in a "change X to Y" format. Before you do, please review the numerous prior other discussion about what your propose. This is a topic with passionate supporters on each side, based in ancient religions with a history of conflict. We need to be careful about what we say and what sources are used. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

Dear Wikipedia,

This riots was not by Hindus against Muslims. This is false and misleading.

" This involved AAP Leader Tahir Hussain organized rioting against Hindus to 'teach them a lesson' " 2A02:8071:2B97:8B00:AA:452C:CC2A:AF06 (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Kautilya3, Please find the reliable sources which are complaint to reliable sources under WP:NEWSORG https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/wanted-to-teach-hindus-a-lesson-using-political-power-ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-confesses/videoshow/77325737.cms These sources are at the same time also among top 10 channel rankings by BARC. There are other multiple reliable sources and if you feel you need more than one then I can share here. I am not posting ranking here as it is available on their website and to save space. Thanks and goodday!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

Change "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and caused 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."

to

"The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and masterminded by AAP leader Tahir Hussain. The instigation was against Hindus in the area to "teach them a lesson". Tahir Hussain stashed many petrol bombs and ammunition that were given to the mob to violently attack the Hindu population in the surrounding areas. People were slashed with repeated blows or set on fire. There were approximately 53 people killed with many more injured."[1] 2A02:8071:2B97:8B00:AA:452C:CC2A:AF06 (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O70GxbwV7cY
see all the other threads about this above this one, we are not repeating ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User talk:Kautilya3 Please find the reliable sources that support the change https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075 I hope NDTV is not a disputed sources as it is not just popular within India rather across the world with eminent columnist and wider coverage of Indian News at its best. Thanks again and I agree with you that for any user to request for change there must be reliable sources to support it. Good Day!

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020

You have edited in your article about Hindus attacked to Muslims which is wrong. 2405:204:1106:9133:EDE8:6D1:902F:5185 (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2020

This needs to be removed, "In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence". . how can you justify violence by siding with one community.

This section needs to be removed, "After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu organisations continued to parade alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims.[43] About 1,000 Muslims sought shelter in a relief camp on the fringes of Delhi.[44] Gangs of Hindus appeared in several Muslim neighbourhoods in the days preceding the Hindu festival of Holi, celebrated in 2020 on 9 March, to scare Muslims into abandoning their homes"

Provided below are the links to 2 major news papers in India on how the riots have started. the whole article is hijacked by a section of people and looks like Propaganda tool, instead of projecting the truth.

https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075?pfrom=home-cities https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-says-police/articleshow/77322934.cms

wiki should be fair to both the communities, and shouldn't be used as propagand tool as this article is published. only see all the references provided are from foriegn sources who has their own motive is projecting this as anti hindu. we need to make sure these pages are not baised and represents truth and groung reality. Nanikg (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Delhi_riots&oldid=971107566"