Talk:2020 Delhi riots

Police

What about cops inefficiency and involvements. Reports showing that they could have stopped this before it could have started rather helped the pro-CAA and right wings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Dey subrata (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We must not use twitter. Telegraph, Scroll is fine. Verification result of Altnews can be added --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added twitter link of journalist reporting from site, that thread is of Reuters' journalist. Dey subrata (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I do understand but the twitter feed is raw and has not undergone uditorial oversight. hence unfit. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok lets wait for media articles on the same. Dey subrata (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a para which uses tweets as source. Let's wait out for more info. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 22:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The removed materials are restored, second part of the discussion is about the police involvement, not the journos thing. However, police involvement articles and video reporting by prime times of channels already been published, will be added soon by evening. Dey subrata (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray tag for archiving. I am just in awe seeing number of edit requests and their raw comments of name calling, how much people are brainwashed. Dey subrata (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

We must not use twitter. Telegraph, Scroll is fine. Verification result of Altnews can be added ....Why is Telegraph & Scroll trustworthy? Aren't they known for slant in news-coverage?

Mallikarjunasj (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ignorance by police

can we add a new section we can add the role of Police all pro and cons. In some cases they can be seen they are with rioters and targeting victims. Also they were ignoring SOS calls. few refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Jorvee (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Rashid Jorvee, We have to follow WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Please present the proposed draft here on talk page first, to get consensus. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Sure, let me draft somthing. thank you. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Jorvee, yes, this would be quite a significant addition, please draft something for review. SerTanmay (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Jorvee Check the above mentioned links. It will help you to build the section. Dey subrata (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Jorvee, Did you create the draft. You can do it in your user sandbox. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay Dey subrata DBigXray I have drafted little bit and available in my sandbox. I also tag you guys there. Please take a look and get it merge if you find helpful. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

link to sandbox User:Rashid Jorvee/sandbox ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The section still has a lot of issues, will edit on his sandbox and then let's discuss. SerTanmay (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, DBigXray, have rewritten his draft. Refer to his sandbox. SerTanmay (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata is currently blocked. SerTanmay, Rashid Jorvee I have made some changes in the draft, since all three of us agree with the version. I have moved it to the article. further improvements can take place here. thanks a lot for your help in improving this section. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 05:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, thank you! SerTanmay (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done updated in article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead figures names

User:DBigXray With reference to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and 2002 Gujarat Riots articles, is it really necessary to include the "Lead Figures" section in this article? Aswin8 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Delhi High Court has asked the Police to file cases against them for hate speech that caused the violence. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And just like in the above mentioned two articles, can that matter not be mentioned in the main body of the article, rather than in a half-filled section of "Lead Figures"? Aswin8 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The other articles are different from this one. Here a protest was going on. And a leader brought his supporters to get engaged. Secondly, the other names mentioned who delivred hate speech which is now being asked by court to take actions. So appropriate enough to put it. Dey subrata (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, it is mentioned both in the body as well as infobox. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• There is no need to put lead figures names because it looks like a WP:BLPVIO. The page is about riots and you are naming them to be leading riots by using poor and recent media reports. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 17:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel There is no such WP:BLPVIO, mention which one and how relevant?? Dey subrata (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Tahir Hussain SESHEW (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The lead figure names are completely made up. You cannot mention names without the court of law’s final decision. Kkartiki18 (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Till date lead figure has not been removed and other side has not been added even court gave notice to police for Amanullah khan waris pathan And why sharjeel imam is not added as he also gave inflammatory speech Bhav2916 (talk) 10:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the names on infobox were misleading and were clearly providing false impression of the names as being the organizers of the riots. Removed per consensus above. ML ⁹¹¹ 18:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Omar Khalid gave a speech about protesting and organising crowd when trump will visit India. The video is viral ,why is he being left out and what about waaris khan speech iy was communal too Devashish sharma101 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Amit Shah’s answer

• The Delhi pogrom 2020 is Amit Shah’s answer to an election defeat

Interesting article. Can we use anything from this article ? --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No. It's an opinion piece. And only that. For example, second para first line "The Delhi pogrom of 2020 is state-sponsored. Anyone who cannot see that is pretending to be blind". Really? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Everybody in Delhi knew this, its actually NOT opinion, its the bitter fact after all. Dey subrata (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata Thats your opinion. As it is this article is slanted and highly highly lacking WP:NPOV and you two are responsible for pushing propaganda here. 203.88.145.110 (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Role of Tahir Hussain

The family of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma who was brutally killed by rioters in Northeast Delhi’s Chand Bagh, has accused local AAP leader Tahir Hussain of being behind the attack. “Tahir Hussain the AAP councilor is behind the murder of my brother. Anti CAA protestors took my brother and three others to the building which belongs to Tahir Hussain”, Ankit’s brother was quoted as saying.

The family also alleged that the rioters were shooting from the AAP councillor's home and were also equipped with swords and petrol bombs. It added that Ankit was killed by the mob while he was trying to help civilians being trapped by the rioters.

Ankit’s father too pinned the killing on the AAP councillor and described how the family began fearing the worst at 2 AM on Wednesday (26 February). They were later informed of his death by one of their neighbours.

The family has alleged that Ankit’s body had bullet, stab wounds and his throat too was slit. The cops meanwhile have sent the body for a postmortem.

Ankit had joined the IB in 2017 and was posted as a driver in the MT department. His body was dumped in a drain by the rioters.

Tahir Hussain and waris pathan role on this riots should be added. Tahir Hussain house used for throwing stones and petrol bombs. Evidences as per various interviews suggest 4 men were forcefully taken into his home 1 of them was ankit sharma. And later 3 dead bodies found. Ankit sharma's brother said he saw his brother taken away from his own eyes. This is totally hijacked page by propagandist ignoring facts. Sanwat (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about Waris Pathan, but councilor Tahir Hussain's role has been reported by different news websites. Adding sources for further discussion. [1],[2],[3] cc @DBigXRay:. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 05:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Waris pathan speech responsible for riots Sanwat (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that Tahir Hussain is involved. But, my point of view is he might be involved and he mightn't be involved. First there are many sources available where he was blamed for the killing. And there are sources available there denied the allegations. But, The police so far have not commented on the allegations against Hussain. And even no comment from high court about him. And even the source I have presented here there it seems X party says he is involved but Y party says he was not involved. Let's wait for better sources. But, its true the relatives directly alleged him. So it can be added according to this point.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Family's claim is based on a video which claim to be of Hussain's. So lets wait for any fact check article and some better articles of the said video and the incidents, we can add then. Dey subrata (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Family's claim is based on a video"? Not in the source[4] —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, other articles say so. Secondly, he said police asked him to leave home which supposed to have done, as security of MLA is police's responsibilty. So police can also verify this. Third, he was IB officer and his death is totally different from other, it seems fishy to me, it could be a case of murder for other cases taking advantage of this riot. Wait for more clear and fact checking articles. Can be added. Dey subrata (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Much more than "alleged by family". Sources [5],[6]. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There are also some sources there NDTV India, Aajtak, Zee News and so on. I think it should be added now.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity of claims need to be verified, as I said, let fact check articles be there, and more clear article, and as Delhi police can clarify the same as he was asked to leave home by police. Wait for it, don't just headbang the wall to establish a point. Dey subrata (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why Tahir Hussain incident is not added till now. Please see Outlook, Navbharat Times, News Nation and so on. Patrol Bomb, acid, stone etc found from the roof of his house.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, because these are not providing the full picture. NDTV report shows that he was asked by police to leave his house after which the gangs put those things there. There is his side of the events as well. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Dey subrata, how about we add a section on Tahir Hussain mentioning both sides of the arguments? Can then add and update as information is properly verified. SerTanmay (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, any such proposed draft would first need to be discussed here per wP:CONSENSUS ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, how about I take personal responsibility and create a draft on my sandbox? We will then discuss it here and add it after concensus. SerTanmay (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, sounds good to me. Also we must include both sides. I have heard Tahir's interview and it is quite obvious that he is being framed and dragged in this case for getting political advantage. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Agreed, but the issue deserves mention here especially if he is being framed. The people need to know the tactics used by Delhi Police. SerTanmay (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten to show that the AAP politicians were responsible for the riots.

Links:- Times Now, Deccan Herald, OpIndia, News18, India Today

See these also-Times of India for suspected role of Nasir and Irfan gang and Times Now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, No, there is no evidence for your claims and I must remind you about wP:TE. you may soon find yourself blocked if you continue this type of behavior. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Why? Are all those links unacceptable?—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, No your comment before those links is unacceptable, who do you think yourself as ? Chief Justice of India ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw this happened recently

"Delhi violence: FIR registered under section 302 IPC (Punishment for murder) at Dayalpur police station, AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain named in the 'Details' section of the FIR."

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1233046365170589700 43.224.131.12 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please keep your comment focused on the topic and not on the users. read the discussion above. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, you said, "I have heard Tahir's interview and it is quite obvious that he is being framed and dragged in this case for getting political advantage." Where is the neutrality in that statement? How is it obvious to you if you are neutral? Also where are the sources supporting your point of view that he is being framed? 43.224.131.12 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral (WP:NPOV) does not mean you cannot share your opinions on the talk page. The source of this piece of information is Tahir's interview on NDTV. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposal

There is a broad consensus that there should be a a section covering Ankit Sharma's murder and or Tahir Hussain's involvment. Following is my draft proposal for the same, edits are welcome , but we do need to post a section on this since it is a major event in this incident which cannot be excluded.

Ankit Sharma Murder

On 26th February, a body was recovered from a drain in the Chand Bagh area of Northeast Delhi. The deceased was later identified as 26-years old Ankit Sharma who worked as a security assistant in the Intelligence Bureau. Family members of the victim soon alleged that Sharma was actually kidnapped by a mob of 15-20 men and taken inside a building belonging to Tahir Hussain, an AAP councilor from Nehru Vihar area of Mustafabad. Ravinder Sharma, the victim's father was quoted as saying "My son was coming back from duty. 15-20 people came from Tahir's building and took him along with a few others. When people went to free them, they were fired upon and attacked with petrol bombs. Acid was also thrown on them" .

Meanwhile an unverified video circulated on social media showed Tahir Hussain with a stick in his hand with several men on the rooftop of his building, some of whom had covered their faces. On 27th February, some media agencies reported to have found large number of stones, several petrol bombs and some unverified chemicals on the rooftop of Hussain's building. Following media reports, Hussain released a video on social media refuting the allegations leveled against him. He denied inciting the mob and has claimed that he and his family were moved out of the building by the police who shifted them to a safe location on February 24th, one day prior to when Sharma was allegedly kidnapped. “I worked to stop violence, I’m innocent. I stopped people from climbing up my building. I requested the police to be present in the area as my building was being targeted and could be used for wrongful purposes. Delhi Police was present at the building, only they can tell what exactly happened," Hussain was quoted as saying by news agency ANI.

The Delhi Police registered an FIR against Hussain on the basis of the complaint by Sharma's father, for allegedly being involved in the killing of Sharma. Hussain has been charged under sections 365 and 302 of the IPC, in which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment or death.. The police also sealed Hussain's house and factory for further investigation.

References

A14i12 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: Some of the sources have videos embedded in them. Please view them before discussing the veracity of the source.

A14i12 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this article is one-sided. I request experienced editors like Kautilya3 and The9Man to help. Please!—Spasiba5 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that the version above is completely unacceptable as it is full of unverified allegations and political accusations. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's stringent policies on WP:BLP, WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Dey subrata please check out User:SerTanmay/sandbox for my draft on the same. You may edit it to make the language more neutral or make any other necessary changes. SerTanmay (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray How is this biased or unverified? Each and every line is corroborated by a reliable source? There are no assumptions or accusations. What exactly do you think is unverified and a violation of policies? I have mentioned both the sides of the story with proper sources. Both BLPNAME and BLPCRIME are not violated because all the names listed are widely disseminated in social media as well as news agencies and Hussain is already a public figure. The only name which can be omitted is that of Ankit Sharma's father's. The only reason you think this is biased is that you are rooting for Hussain because somehow you are convinced that he is innocent. The matter is under investigation lets not form opinions just yet. It is abhorring that you are not posting anything about Tahir despite him dominating news coverage today. This is perhaps the second-most important investigation pertaining to the case yet somehow it doesn't find any mention on the page. If Rahul Solanki's father can be quoted then why not Ankit Sharma's. I have quoted both his father and Husaain. The only one who is being biased ae the moderators who are desperately trying to portray this incident as a pogrom. A14i12 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

the WP:BLP concerns are for Tahir. He is not a notable person and cannot be discussed or mentioned on wikipedia unless he is convicted in a court of law. The reasons are in the links I gave. Wikipedia does not care if IT cells keep chanting his name on social media. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray How is a politician not a public figure? He is an elected councilman, hence a notable person. Just because you or me haven't heard his name before does not mean he is a private person. Not only "IT-cell" all major news channels are investigating Tahir. None of the sources I mentioned are right wing sources. It does not violate either of the links mentioned. Please keep prejudice aside and look at things objectively. A14i12 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, A14i12, please check out the draft on my sandbox. If necessary, we can remove all the content of questionable verifiability. Have currently kept it there as "allegations". SerTanmay (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not neutral in this all fiasco so I will restrain myself taking sides here and making any major edits.

But regarding Hussain's matter, an FIR is registered in his name for the charge of Ankit Sharma murder and his party suspended him from the primary membership. This matter is widely covered by almost all the media including NDTV. This surely worth a mention in this article. - The9Man | (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• DBigXray & SerTanmay just watched this and the fact is Hussain seems to give enough evidence and chronology to defend his side but I don't see the same on the basis of which the family accused. Interview of Hussain- Interesting fact, every house was targeted, police came which were asked to come by Huassain only, his house was taken care of by Police, I am not convinced of family's claim as there is no fact or evidence. Dey subrata (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• DBigXray and SerTanmay my first question is why his death is more important than anyothers death?? We have not included other gruesome murders and deaths. Second, its been clear that he was asked by police to leave, but police's delay in revealing the developments is surprising, atleast they can clarify to media when and at what circumstances they asked his family to vacate. And I have gone through the sand box, there ae excessive, give it another revision it can be summarised more. And also search fr any fact-check articles on videos and photographs they are mentioning cause the claims are based on those photographs, if not wait fr such fact checking articles too. Dey subrata (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A14i12, as per my understanding this particular politician did nothing news-worthy until today. If he did, then there would be scope to create an entire article on him. SerTanmay (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, good points put forward. Have edited the sandbox to reflect the alleged nature of the images and videos. SerTanmay (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Dey subrata, has raised some very valid points. let me make a list of it as we would need to decide on each problem

1. Ankit Sharma is not a notable person neither on a high post, his death, is not any special than those 40 people killed by the rioters.
2. The circumstances leave a lot of questions, why did police asked him to leave instead of giving him protection in his house. If they asked him to leave, how is he responsible if rioters entered his house, after he left. Why did police allowed rioters to enter his house.
3. As Ravish Kumar NDTV said in Prime Time today, he seems to be used as an excuse by BJP to attack AAP.
4. Tahir has been suspended from AAP, so he is no longer an AAP concillor.
5. Tahir is a non notable person hence WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME come into picture, no matter what news channels are saying, unless he is convicted, we cannot discuss the unproven allegation as it has direct impact on this living person.
6. The only uncontroversial content than can be added is that "the dead body of Ankit Sharma, a Security Assistant in IB was found in Jafrabad" ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Points 1, 2, 3: Agreed.

   Point 4: Edited in my sandbox. (Should I move the draft here?)

   Point 5: I wasn't aware of this. Was about to ask how the BJP perpetrators can be added but not this but noticed that they all have wiki articles and Hussain doesn't.

   6. Was already added by me in the "25 February" section. SerTanmay (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Point5, yes, you are correct the difference here is being notable and having an article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Notability should not be judged on the basis of whether or not there is a Wikipedia page about the Hussain. I couldn't find any wikipedia policy which explicitly mentions that people without wikipedia articles are not public figures. He is a elected councilman, which definitely makes him a public figure. A14i12 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC) DBigXray Now even if he is not a public figure is non notable, mentioning allegations against him is still not violating WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE since we are citing high-quality sources and are mentioning that everything is just an allegation as of now. If the post doesn't misrepresent an allegation or an opinion as a fact, Hussain should be mentioned to give proper context to readers.A14i12 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict policies on WP:BLP and for good reasons. You can click the link and understand why. The bottom line that you need to understand is Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Dont try to make it one. what is acceptable for newspaper is often unacceptable for Wikipedia. This is one case. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Thats just an arbitrary opinion. I actually read the entire page, especially WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPNAME. And mentioning Tahir's name in an article does not violate any of these policies. If I were to start a page on him then things might have been different. But just mentioning him in an article ,citing high quality secondary sources, is just fair game. The rational of mentioning or not mentioning an individual should not be a wiki page since that is not explicitly mention anywhere.A person who doesn't have his own wiki article can be surely considered a public figure.A14i12 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC) DBigXray case in point the Samjhauta Express terror attack. All the accused are named despite there being no convictions and despite neither of them being notable persons. Tahir can tomorrow be acquitted and that can be added at a later stage but right now mentioning his name is of utmost importance.A14i12 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

it might be of "utmost importance" to you, not for Wikipedia. let him be convicted first. Considering that all AAP MLAs have been exonerated by the court despite being repeatedly framed by Police, he might also follow suit. But then how would you undo the damage. Wikipedia needs a conviction for non notable criminals exactly for that reason. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, Dey subrata, Just as expected the family member of Ankit sharma changed their statement. [7] They told WSJ that Hindu mobs killed Sharma, now they are saying something else. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A14i12 Whoa...whoa, hold on, utmost importance..for whom? why? I'm not going to add a single line without evidence or acceptable rationale. DCP Alok was present, police asked to leave home, they have taken care of his home, so police to verify that, secondly, the video that gone viral, in the interview he accept its him, and defined the full chronology, and can be seen he is forcing people to leave terrace and people can be seen pouring water to stop fire, and from video its also been shown that not only his house but all houses near by captured by mob, so again, there is lot of weight on his side, seeing that the family did not produce any substantial argument based on evidence, its evident the family perhaps been misleaded by some one, finally, he was a IB officer, and his death is totally different from other, which itslef makes fishy. No absolutely nothing to be added in the article. I actually read the entire page, especially WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPNAME, I am afraiD then you are one classic case of WP:COMPETENCE as lot of rationale produced for you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray It is of utmost importance because that is what dominated news coverage today and will probably continue to dominate in the coming days.Also in my knowledge it is the only case where an accused has been named. Everyone is investigating about the same including NDTV and CNNTV18. Stop imposing your biases as Wikipedia's policies. Nowhere is it written that we should wait until the court convicts or acquits an individual for committing a crime before mentioning his name. If that were the case most crime related topics would have been empty articles. There are countless pages related to unsolved murders and terror attacks where accused have been named without a conviction, an acquittal and sometimes even when charges were not pressed. So please stop misleading readers by saying that mentioning Hussain's name violates WP policy. Here are some of the articles that I can think of right off the top of my head, where non convicts and non notables were mentioned: (Just imagine a Samjhauta Express article without naming Lt Col Purohit. Isn't that absurd??)

A14i12 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done though the mention of incident has been added in the article but not the allegations which does not have any substantial rationale and evidence rather article, videos and rationale suggests otherwise. And such thing will be added surely once police clarify with evidence when and how many times he called polcie, when police reached his home, why they asked Hussain to leave home and what happened when he was not there and when returned or any fact check articles. Dey subrata (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• A14i12, Please repeat after me.
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Dey subrata did you see my comment above. "Just as expected the family member of Ankit sharma changed their statement. [8] They told WSJ that Hindu mobs killed Sharma, now they are saying something else. " ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Yes thats why tagged as not done. As from begining it was looking like someone misleaded them. I think I will close the discussion. There is nothing left to discuss. Dey subrata (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Dey subrata, After the WSJ article I agree that we should wait for the news to be verified before adding to the article. Will however maintain an updated copy on my sandbox to add later. SerTanmay (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, noted. SerTanmay (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, yes, as per Wikipedia policies on living persons, unless he gets convicted in a court of law, he cannot be mentioned. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Kapil Mishra and Tahir Hussain are being treated unequally. please see 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray This is a clear case of bias. If Tahir Hussain (Aam Aadmi Party) who was caught on camera leading the operation from his roof top, covered by all major news media, held responsible for the gruesome murders by family of Ankit Sharma and his neighbors, suspended on Thursday from the AAP party, booked by the Delhi Police for the murder -- cannot be discussed or mentioned on wikipedia unless he is convicted in a court of law due to WP:BLP concerns, why Kapil Mishra(BJP). When you hold one person Kapil Mishra responsible for the entire riots(his picture is on top page) as the prime instigator, devoting a complete section declaring him as the culprit without him being convicted in a court of law, does it not violate any wikipedia WP:BLP rules. The key difference I see between the two individuals and how they are being biased on wikipedia is their religion and their political affiliations. This is wrong and should be corrected immediately. Peace3050 (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

See the sections below on "Tahir Hussain responses" and "Tahir Hussain again". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Fake News Rajat Rauth (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

WSJ quote:

The body of Ankit Sharma was found Wednesday morning in a gutter in Jafrabad, one of the areas worst affected by the recent violence in northeast Delhi, according to police and family of the 26-year-old officer.

Mr. Sharma was returning home when a group of rioters started throwing stones and charged into the street near where his house is located, his brother said. "They came armed with stones, rods, knives and even swords; they shouted ' Jai Shri Ram ' [Glory to Lord Ram]; some even wore helmets," said Ankur Sharma, in a telephone interview. "They started throwing stones and bricks at residents, who rushed to Ankit to help them….Later, his body was found in a ditch."

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Possibly fake news??. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

References

DBigXray Dey subrata Kautilya3 SerTanmay I'd rather believe India's leading publication over foreign MSM paper. Here's times of India debunking WSJ hit piece https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/times-fact-check/news/fact-check-ankit-sharmas-brother-denies-saying-his-brother-was-killed-by-those-chanting-jai-shri-ram/articleshow/74355310.cms The point is not about of the veracity of claims. You can definitely mention WSJ quotes in the article and give a complete picture to the readers. This thing is far too big to be hidden. Put something up detailing both sides of the story with WSJ and TOI versions. People deserve to read about this. Moderators are not expected to file a chargesheet here on the basis of media reports. It absolutely doesn't matter what you think of the accused. If that were the case then anyone can just remove Lt Col Purohit from the page of Samjhauta Bombings , any of the suspected zodiac killers mentioned on the wiki page, or basically any accused in any case. But posting something which tells both versions of the story without a bias is important. Ankit's is the only case where on single high-profile perpetrator has been accused and going by media reports that guy is absconding. All of you giving him a clean chit are only doing so because of political leanings and not because of evidence(because there just isn't enough evidence to acquit or convict him yet). Examining evidence is not the job of wikepedia but presenting facts are. This page already looks like a fluff piece already please do not make it incomplete by not adding Tahir or Ankit. If not mine at least put up SerTanmay's version. There is a story and that story needs to be written in a non-biased way. Oh and Dey subrata my arguments are not incompetent. I am not abusing, trolling or getting emotional about it either. All my statements are backed by a valid source and they most definitely are not arbitrary opinions about whether I think he is guilty or not from the beginning. This case if far too big to not have a presence on a platform like Wikipedia. As the investigation progresses we can update the page accordingly. And since you all are just throwing WP norms for the sake if it, here's a couple WP:DGF WP:AGFC. User:A14i12

It doesn't matter what you believe. you can read SerTanmay's reply where he agrees not to add it. See wP:SOAPBOX, please take your political rants to blogs and forums. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Its an opinion not an information and that is also highly biased and factually incorrect in between like Assam NRC was led by Supreme court.As a responsible writers we must consider only those opinions which even if critical must adhere to neutrality otherwise we will be alleged of same which PM modi is facing that is biased perspective.No difference between two,its just on the other side. Puneet.Garg.123 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Tahir Hussain responses

DBigXray After this interview evidences of PCR calls, Video appeal to Delhi Police, its authenticy by fact checking, shows its hardly now debatable, there is nothing left. You please archive it. Dey subrata (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, please do summarize what you saw in those links. or else people will continue arguing endlessly. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• In the interview, Tahir Hussain states that the video in which he was seen on the roof top was from 24 February, when he was attempting to drive off the protesters/rioters from his roof top. (It is not entirely clear if it is "his" roof top. There seem to be lots of flats and shops in the building, his being one of them.) On the advice of the police he left his flat on that day to go and stay elsewhere, after handing over his building/flat to the police. So when the other events happened on the 25th, the building was under the charge of the police (formally speaking, we know that the police wasn't in the charge of anything). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• Though already been said several times, still for a final time, reiterating as per all above articles and rationale, 1. The video of his roof terrace is of him, he himself accepted as nothing wrong in it. His interview to NDTV. Rather, he can be seen removing people from his terrace. 2. All building are captured by mob and he with other can be seen trying to extinguish fire. 3. He has made several PCR calls and when didn't receive any assistance he had to made a video on 24 February and the . Video appeal to Delhi Police its authenticy verified by Altnew.in. 4. Evidently when police came, as a parsad, his safety was police responsibilty, may be asked to leave home though police have to clarify why asked to leave, which he did. Basically if someone is rioting why would he call police to see any kind of evidence. 5. Question, anybody seen or ahve any evidence of bringing those so called acid bomb by him and their authenticy? Answer:No 6. and case registered and FIRs are not enough to add, will be violation of WP:BLP, fails notability, and there are 123 FIRs till now. Final, the most important thing, the officer's family later said was attacked by right wing nationalist. So, its clear now. There is abosultely no need of adding such thing in the article, the death of the officer though mentioned appropriately. Dey subrata (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Hindustan Times

The Hindustan Times, a paper that I generally respect, says:

He lived in Chand Bagh in Northeast Delhi and had gone out to see that was happening in the locality in Tuesday - the worst day of violence - and never returned. His family members searched for Sharma frantically for eight hours and finally got to know next morning that his body has been found.

This is quite at variance with what the WSJ was told on 26 February. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

References

: You stick to that WSJ and NYT only as long as they suit your propaganda. --Biman1989 (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) (blocked for sockpuppetry)

Sorry, you are not reading. They searched him for eight hours, when they did not find him. But somehow magically they dreamt in the night that he had been dragged into somebody's house and killed. Miracles! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Your comments are highly insensitive,

If someone is missing, would not the family search her/him for hours?

"Ankit got worried about his brother and told me that he was going to look for him. I told him to not step out and that I was making tea, but he left without saying anything,”

"They refused to write our complaint and asked us to go to the hospitals,”

"After Ankit’s family returned home at around 1:30 am, they again carried out a search operation in the area with the help of their neighbours."

It is then that some residents told them that Ankit was dragged into Hussain’s office and that the AAP councilor was responsible for his death.

“We were told that Tahir and his men dragged my brother and two others to his office and killed him. The people also told us that they saw the men throwing the bodies in the drain,” claimed Sonam, Ankit’s sister. please see

https://theprint.in/india/ib-officer-ankit-sharmas-death-case-of-targeted-killing-aaps-tahir-hussain-named-in-fir/372346/ 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Several bodies has been found in the nahar near tahir Hussain's house.Even some girl's burnt cloths has been found in his house along with several bottles of Molotov (petrol bombs) ,and big slings shots. But on your page nothing has been mentioned Wikipedia. This page is showing false and one-sided facts about delhi riots-2020. Erashuner (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Tahir Hussain is the real culprit of delhi North east riots

Hirtesh chawla (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Victim list

I am going to start the discussion by saying that for this particular article having a victim list does more harm than good. I am aware of victim inclusion on events such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but also see articles like Kyoto Animation arson attack (at GA status). Right off the top we have an issue with the first thing that was added for the section: "34 people died in several incidents of violence. Below is a list of some of them:", why are there only "some" of the victims included? Are "some" more notable than others? When the death count becomes higher, it becomes more of a challenge to include all of the names without having the article turn into a Memorial. Its really up to editors here if having a victim list will improve the quality of the article or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I would note that I support this comment by Knowledgekid87. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I also support it, but we must first list the Aam Aadmi Party politicians who started the riots and cite references for the same!—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Reverting without discussing things here is considered disruptive. I will copy and paste your above statement here though...

"Following from a section above about the casualty list - since this riots supposedly also have a lot to do with religious orientation, the religious demographics of those killed should be mentioned in the article and further as part of the CAA casualty list over on the main article for this CAA protests - "Names of 19 People Killed in Delhi Riots Confirmed (The Wire)", Delhi violence | Death toll rises to 27 (The Hindu)."

Citing the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article falls under WP:WAX as I have already pointed out that casualty list inclusion depends on the article. I do not see the justification of citing Religious demographics here for inclusion as in the end people are people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I second Knowledgekid87, having a victim list will not make much sense, especially if the list grows larger. SerTanmay (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to break WP:3RR, if someone feels there is a consensus then remove the "casualty list". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 I think we should remove the list. It does more harm than good because the name reveal religious identities and further it needs to be updated. As one of the citations (from the Hindu, I reckon) themselves have more names. Perhaps we could include them.Trojanishere (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere.

I believe consensus has been achieved to Remove the section. Will add it back if we can prove that it adds significant value to the article, while covering every single casualty. SerTanmay (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not like Coronavirus; so, the victim list won't keep expanding indefinitely. I think the final tally will stand at 39.

For example https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/delhi-situation-improving-dont-believe-rumours-says-centre-10-points-2186970

To add to pages that have and don't have lists of casualties:

Columbine page doesn't have a list Columbine_High_School_massacre.

Nor does the page about the Las Vegas shooting 2017_Las_Vegas_shooting.

The Orlando nightclub shooting page has the list of victims Orlando_nightclub_shooting

I would prefer to have the list here as that adds encyclopedia value by clearly indicating that the victims were from one community. Of course, one can cite 10 or 20 'reputed' news organizations from both India and abroad who will say the same thing.

For example, USCIRF has said what it has said and GOI has responded with what it has responded. So, we can put both on Wikipedia.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/comments-by-uscirf-others-delhi-caa-violence-attempt-politicise-issue-mea-1650462-2020-02-27

(BTW, this bit pertains more to the 'other' discussion thread about whether the article is 'neutral' or not. But kind of relevant to this discussion as well.) Sachi Mohanty 09:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Sachi bbsr (talk)

Stating that all of the victims were from the same community can easily be summed up in a sentence or two. I just feel its too much on the WP:OR side to say that all of the victims were from the same community by just looking at a list of names. The names on the list could be included in the article when their notability is established as much. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree Knowledgekid87, but see the 'latest' additions to this Talk page at the bottom. As I write this, it is 29th February. A special day! Someone is again raising the 'both sides' issue. Having the names out there on the page for ready reference might make things clear. The operative word being 'might.' It won't convince those who resolutely refuse to see or understand. Let me stress, this is a friendly observation and not an 'argument.' Sachi_bbsr talk 10:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

As per the earlier wiki pages like Orlando_nightclub_shooting has the victim list because It has reference because the names were made public in notable reference.

To add,

1. Existing victim list in CAA Protest should be removed unless we have a reference to a list of people it may be daily stats [Will start a talk there also.]

2. We cannot each victim individually from different sources/references. Such calculations will be incomplete and may lead to bias as a person may choose to add a particular person as a victim and leave others.

3. You cannot classify a person on the regional ground (This should not be your past knowledge/original work) I guess for that too you need references.

4. We can give the count of people belonging to the different communities if we have concrete numbers.

5. Any deceased person who is a notable person with a lot of reference in Wikipedia can be added in the timeline/riots section without a sub - section. WhiteTheme (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian view on Delhi’s violence: Modi stoked this fire

• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/26/the-guardian-view-on-delhis-violence-modi-stoked-this-fire

This can be used, but another opinion would be needed to balance out as an opposing viewpoint. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it cannot be. It is an opinion piece merely hosted on The Guardian, not a piece by the editorial staff. Also, there is no requirement that information included needs to be somehow balanced, as long as the information is reliably sourced and meets the verifiability policy. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, it says "Editorial" below the headline. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: It is an opinion piece by the editorial staff it seems. Either way, that means you cannot use it as a source for facts but can be used for other sourcing purposes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

They are giving it a headline that says "The Guardian view on..." and also including "Editorial" so it clearly means they are very serious about it and approved by their big guns.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

They are serious about it, yes, approved by big guns, maybe. Opinion pieces do not go through the same editorial process as news articles because they are opinion pieces, not news articles, hence subject to less stringent processes. You don't use the Sunday special sex ed column as source for factual information, do you? --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

We should not miss the big picture here: Narendra Modi is Prime Minister of the Indian Union. Ultimate responsibility for protecting citizens of the Indian Union falls on his shoulders. Narendra Modi's consistent support for Hindi Nationalism and bias against Muslims, Dalits and non-Hindi peoples of South Asia is well documented across global media. It is well-known that Modi and his cohorts are fomenting all this violence. I fully agree this article must be quoted, as it redresses much of the bias of the racist New Delhi media octopus. WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Just want to make a quick point that a newspaper's 'editorial' is what it says it is. If NYT or WaPo or Guardian says something in an editorial, I am sure that's Wikipedia-worthy. A newspaper in the US 'endorsing' some candidate as a party's nominee or to be the President in the general election tends to be pretty big news. Even when Aatish Taseer writes an 'opinion' piece in Time Magazine critical of the Indian Prime Minister which then leads to his having 'troubles' related to his 'PIO' status, that's a 'widely known' or 'widely shared' viewpoint and can be mentioned on the relevant Wikipedia page. Other counterviews can be posted as well. Let some newspaper come out with an Editorial in support of the GOI, then someone can add that to Wikipedia. As long as editorials in respected newspapers are coming out that are critical of GOI, Wikipedia editors should be free to add those editorials to Wikipedia articles saying such-and-such newspaper has come out with an editorial saying such-and-such. All these things are obvious but I felt they needed to be said. Sachi Mohanty 08:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Sachi bbsr (talk)

‘Modi stoked this fire’: How international media reported Delhi violence

• ‘Modi stoked this fire’: How international media reported Delhi violence

looks like our article still needs a lot of work. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, absolutely. And that's what we're here for. SerTanmay (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, Sachi bbsr, Agree with the comments. This seems to be a consensus. can we prepare a draft on this ? where can this be added ? FYI Knowledgekid87, QEDK WashingtonPrime ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, we can add it in the "Aftermath" section that Sachi bbsr is working on, maybe under the sub-section of "Reactions". SerTanmay (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

UPPER-CASTE DOMINANCE OF MOBS

 The article so far fails to mention a very important aspect of the mob violence: the Hindi-Hindu mobs are dominated by UPPER CASTES - BRAHMINS and RAJPUTS. Kapil Mishra himself is a BRAHMIN. Please mention this paramount aspect. Here is another reference to this fact:

"The Hindu right-wing mob at the Babarpur junction on the night of 24 February came from the Hindu localities of the neighbouring areas—Yamuna Vihar to the north, Seelampur to the south, Maujpur to the west and Chhajjupur to the east. Several members of the Hindu right-wing mob had their upper-caste pride on display. Many men among them wore t-shirts that had “Brahman,” “Jat” and “Jai Shri Ram” written on them and from my conversation with them I gleaned that many of them belonged to other upper castes such as Rajputs and Baniyas." - ('Hindu supremacist mobs orchestrate violence against Muslims where BJP won in Delhi elections' Sagar, Caravan Magazine, 25 February 2020 https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/delhi-violence-north-east-maujpur-jaffrabad-babarpur-muslims-hindu

Please add this important point to the article, in order to provide a proper persective to this issue. Thank You. WashingtonPrime (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WashingtonPrime, what additional value does it add to the article? SerTanmay (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The prominent role of Upper Caste Hindi-speaking communities (especially Brahmins and Rajputs) in the orchestrated violence has so far found no mention in the article, which in general exhibits a pro-New Delhi bias. Nor has the fact that Kapil Mishra is a Brahmin Supremacist himself. This is a colossal omission as Wikipedia should cover all aspects of the violence, including the caste composition of the perpetrators, as this is being clearly mentioned on the ground itself. In fact, the rioters are wearing T-Shirts bearing slogans glorifying their caste, and belong to a social movement that is generally known as 'Manu-wadi' (followers of Pandit Manu, the Brahmin author of the Manu-Smirti). This in itself should be grounds for inclusion in the article, and would address some of the Unionist bias shown in this article. WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

why not the role of police describe in articles most of the news chennels running the news about police is supporting hindu terrorist to destroy the property of muslims and killings. they just stopped their working and letting the rioters to loot and arsoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.31.121.208 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WashingtonPrime, Please provide the draft that you want to add with the reliable sources. If it is acceptable, it will be added. Hope it helps. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. WashingtonPrime, your idea sounds interesting. SerTanmay (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi WashingtonPrime you could create the draft in your sandbox. SerTanmay (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Inhuman Tweeting by Vivek Agnihotri

Take a look at this tweet.

https://twitter.com/vivekagnihotri/status/1232129299492360193

I don't know what to do with this. Sachi_bbsr talk 10:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Police Inhumanity along with Vivek Agnihotri's Tweet

https://twitter.com/ndtvvideos/status/1233467939879374849

Same incident that Vivek is ridiculing. Sachi_bbsr talk 10:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sachi_bbsr They were then taken to police station and beaten even more[9]. One of the guys in blue shirt named Faizan eventually died. [10] see [11].

see police vandalizing property [12] --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-violence-video-national-anthem-6291881/ Sachi_bbsr talk 10:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sachi bbsr, I think this can be added to the article. thoughts ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Sure. It can be a micro-story in itself inside the bigger article. A sub-section perhaps titled "Possible Police Barbarism" and perhaps another sub-section "Dehumanising Tweet by Vivek Agnihotri." It aligns with various other dehumanising statements about 'protesters' who 'can be identified by what they are wearing' and how Shah is going to 'remove every termite' "infiltrating" the country and so forth. And there is historical precedence for such talk in Rwanda and Nazi Germany. It's a 'particular' thing but also part of a 'larger' and more general pattern of hate speech. Just yesterday, I came across these three Wiki pages (and apparently there are exactly three of these 'kind'):

* Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump

* Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill

* Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany

I guess it's a very specific 'incident' but there is a larger picture and historical patterns. Sachi_bbsr talk 10:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sachi bbsr, see the discussion at #Police. that user has created a draft at User:Rashid Jorvee/sandbox may be you can review and include there. So that it can be added into the article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, I took a cursory look at the text there and it's very poorly worded; not up to Wikipedia standards. I have given this some thought since I last wrote here. I think this part of the "story" is like a "coda" or an "Aftermath" or something along those lines. So, a subsection can be added to the article with a possible title of "Aftermath of the Riots" or something along those lines. "Role of the Delhi Police" can be a sub-subsection which will have text saying 'Delhi Police was seen accompanying rioters and stone throwers' which can be backed up with citations. The text will further say 'Delhi Police was seen beating some people lying on the ground who were subsequently taken to the local police station and beaten even more. One of the persons (insert name) was admitted in the neurosurgery wing of (insert hospital name) but (insert name) died on the (insert date).' Citations are of course there.

Another sub-subsection can be "Public's Reaction" which will point out that 'a crowd was seen chanting "goli maro ..." at the Rajiv Chowk Metro station on the 29th of February.' Another sentence in this sub-subsection will say that 'a crowd was seen marching in the Cannaught Circus area chanting "goli maro ..."'. I recall bdutt's tweet about this. Proper citations should be available now.

Others can possibly add other sorts of 'reactions'. I don't know if R Jagganathan's tweet talking about the need for Hindus to 'rise' for this 'civilization war' qualifies as a Post Riot reaction. Seems pretty incendiary to me. There is of course Vivek Agnihotri's tweet which seeks to belittle ... actually I will need to refer back to V Agnihotri's tweet to try and 'make sense' of what his point was.

I came across one more tweet (possibly from Sania Ahmed) where she pointed to Lal Bahadur Shashtri's granddaughter responding with a "lol crying' emoji to someone who suggested (or quote tweeted) to a Rana Ayyub tweet where Rana Ayyub said that she felt like 'hanging her head in shame.' The person who quote-tweeted Ayyub suggested the use of a 'rope.' And Shashtri's granddaughter found that suggestion immensely funny.

Surely I must have missed other 'reactions' by people to the riots. We can point to op-eds if any by major individuals. People like Rajdeep Sardesai have come out with some usual "both-sidism" by saying those involved on "both sides" should be severely punished or words to that effect.

Wait. Didn't the British Parliament also say something or the other? Other 'reactions' may be issued by other international organizations or human rights institutions or others. I have seen that USCIRF and OIC statements and India's official reactions to those statements are already part of the Wiki article. I thought that deserved a separate sub-subsection titled "International Reactions."

Just some thoughts. If there is some "agreement" about some of this on the Talk page, I might spend two or three hours crafting something. No point in spending that time and then publishing it and having somebody remove everything 'wholesale.' I have in mind the decision to remove the list of victims. Sachi_bbsr talk 16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

One more thought. Did Patra come out with some incendiary tweet about the need for Hindus to 'rise' or what I think I saw on my Twitter timeline was an old tweet by him? Pretty incendiary one. Which reminds me: I added some of his controversial statements to his page and maybe others can add/expand since Patra's false statements and misstatements are legion if not legendary. Sachi_bbsr talk 16:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sachi bbsr, I approve of your suggestions. SerTanmay (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sachi bbsr, have you began working on it? I'd like to chip in wherever possible. Maybe you can begin in your sandbox? SerTanmay (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi SerTanmay, I will create an Aftermath section in my Sandbox then. Also see this section. Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Chand_Bagh? And I am watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwUoLpkmhk&feature=youtu.be Sachi_bbsr talk 13:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sachi bbsr, noted. You may use these references: [13], [14] in addition to [15] and [16] SerTanmay (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's totally fake info you should investigate this And who is this nonsense author ? Shame on you wikipedia Raviarnav08 (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Ravairnav08 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If the reliable sources are incorrect, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Selective inclusion and exclusion violates neutral point of view. 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be added. All the sections should be made concise. We are not filing a charge sheet. Shubham2019 (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In the, "Incitement to violence" section.—Spasiba5 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If, "Scroll.in" meets the WP:RS criteria, please add a sentence casting aspersions on the police, but don't remove what I added. It looks like you are an apologist!—Spasiba5 (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Patent baisness

While "AAP leader Sanjay Singh, released a video in which BJP MLA from Laxmi Nagar, Abhay Verma was seen leading crowds that raised slogans "Police ke hatyaaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko (transl. Shoot the people, who murdered the policeman)"," is mentioned despite so many allegations, videos, FIRs and AAP membership suspension nothing related to Tahir Hussain is mentioned. 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |}

It the article very emphasized on majority of victims were Muslims. But no independent source support. It seems writer of the article is narrating his feelings. Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I quote from this oped on The Print. "Over forty persons dead. Both Hindus and Muslims, almost in equal measure. What is worse is the horror of several unidentified dead, in fact, close to a third of them, listed simply as “unknown”. "

Also any Indian can easily make out the religion from seeing the names of the victims. I hate to do this but since the line is indicating bias to I checked and yes almost same number of both religion killed. Shubham2019 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Allah O Akbar is used in violence as a weapon in case our writers were born yesterday. Terrorists blow themselves up chanting Allah o Akbar. Equivalence applies, if anything Jai Shri Ram is associated with less cases of violence as opposed to Allah o Akbar. Shubham2019 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free-for-all: a message to new users

A few related pointers for new users:

1. Stick to reliable sources or you are wasting everyone's time here.
2. Make sure to avoid violating our living persons policy as that is a legal risk to Wikipedia which will not be tolerated.
3. Avoid just stating your opinions — unless it has to do with improving the article, specifically, it is disruptive to the stability of this talk page.
4. I have protected the talk page for one day, but if the same level of disruption continues, it will be protected for considerably longer.
5. Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech. It is an encyclopedia where information is verified only by summarizing reliable sources.
6. All article talk page discussion ought to be geared toward this end.

Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 14:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

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

Ishrat Jahan arrest

Please add to the list of those arrested for stoking violence.

Bail denied for Congress Party councillor Ishrat Jahan. Charges on her include rioting and attempt to murder. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/feb/28/delhi-riots-court-rejects-bail-plea-of-arrested-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-ishrat-jahan-2109944.html Gayatri 02:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayatri9876 (talk • contribs)

• AGREE*- Prominent arrests should be mentioned if something is not mentioned.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR and now BRD are being imposed at this article, so let us get a consensus before we add anything. I propose, "Sabu Ansari, Khalid and Ex-Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan have been booked for offences under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault on public servant), 332 (voluntarily causes hurt to public servant), 307 (attempt to murder), 109 (abetment), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC and relevant sections of the Arms Act. A Delhi court rejected their bail plea."

Kautilya3, Dey subrata, Sarvatra, UrbanCentrist, Datta, Aman.kumar.goel, My Lord, DBigXray, SerTanmay, A14i12, DiplomatTesterMan, Sachi bbsr, Trojanishere, S. M. Nazmus Shakib, Vanamonde93, WashingtonPrime, Souniel Yadav, Gayatri9876, Edward Zigma, Shubham2019, WhiteTheme, please comment!—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I am okay with this. 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayatri9876 (talk • contribs)

I also support addition since this is covered by the mainstream news sources.[ https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/ishrat-jahan-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-arrested-for-inciting-violence-during-delhi-riots-593664][ https://www.abplive.com/videos/news/former-congress-councilor-ishrat-jahan-arrested-1315286] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 02:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am also in favor of adding content about this incident per above. ML ⁹¹¹ 04:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds ok, not sure if all the IPC sections are important, though. SerTanmay (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I got a ping from User:Spasiba5 about this. The sources look reliable to me, so this can be added here. But Spasiba5 where should the proposed text be added in the article, I mean in which section/subsection? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 05:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they are arrested should of course be mentioned, but the charges are not described at the right level. Here is for example a better source:

At least two activists from Delhi’s Khureji Khas area, who were arrested from an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protest site on Wednesday afternoon, have been physically tortured in judicial custody, according to their family members. They have also been booked for rioting, attempting to murder a police official, and possessing and using firearms, which their families and other protesters claim are false and unsubstantiated charges.

DBigXray, can you take a look? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3, I would like to stress that WIkipedia is not newspaper. WE do not write everything that papers are printing. We also need to follow WP:BLPNAME with regard to non notable people. Newspapers obviously have no WP:BLPNAME restrictions. More than 700 people have been arrested. And according to Wikipedia all these people who do not have their own article qualify for WP:BLPNAME. The international media are not covering this incident on Jahan, and I can understand that this news lacks significance. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If Ishrat Jahan can not be mentioned, we should remove references to Kapil Mishra also since he has not been convicted or found guilty and WIkipedia is not a newspaper!—Spasiba5 (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Spasiba5. The court's orders and the charges pressed in the cases should be given more importance than personal beliefs about the criminal involvement of an accused. Let us add these details (regarding Ishrat Jahan) and update them according to the rulings of the court. Involvement of Kapil Mishra is so explicitly implied in this page. I think we should hold our horses there and mention that 'so and so person alleged him to be responsible'.Trojanishere (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Azuredivay (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC) As per the sources above, the information should have a separate paragraph for sure. Agree with Spasiba here.

Spasiba5, you first added this text to "Incitement" (with quotation marks) and now you added it to the lead (without quotation marks):

Sabu Ansari, Khalid and Ex-Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan have been booked for offences under a couple of sections of the Indian Penal code and relevant sections of the Arms Act. A Delhi court rejected their bail plea.

References

What makes you think this belongs in the lead? I have cited a Scroll.in source that has also covered their arrest. Have you looked at it, and if so, how did you take it into account? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Put End Date

Hi @DBigXray: kindly put end date in the infobox most media sources state that riot has ended. I'm not sure what exact date the riot ended. Moreover put some images of the riot victims or riot hit areas. Thanks--Isak.lund (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Isak.lund, I know, someone did and someone else reverted them claiming that we need RS. since this is now on WP:1RR, I have no intentions to mess with that dispute. Let a consensus with WP:RS emerge here in this thread, after which the content along with wP:RS can be added into the article. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Alright.--Isak.lund (talk) 06:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Isak.lund, DBigXray, found these sources: [17], [18]. Let's wait for WP:RS from tomorrow (about today) to add the end date with consensus (the idea being that no incidents on two days means that the riots have ended.) SerTanmay (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Support move, it should be

Feb 2020, Delhi Roits Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep lets wait.--Isak.lund (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Found 3 more sources: [19], [20], [21] SerTanmay (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, please go ahead and add it. Is it 29 February? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done SerTanmay (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Takbir

One more thing I want to know(just to clear) that article mentions that clash occurs with "Takbir" too. Do we have any reliable source for that? I searched it but cannot find any reliable source on this one.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi there is a discussion here, source is very weak and temporarily accepted, the author has not replied since then Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_1#25th_February. Kautilya3 Please take a look. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Deccan Chronicle is a weak source. This comprehensive story from The Caravan datelined 25 February cites Jai Shri Ram and worse, but no mention of Takbir. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

AsianAge Scroll.in.DeccanChronicle Please see 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the sources. I will add it back after checking some more for better information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it could be added but in the details. Is there enough weightage to add it in synopsis? On one reported incident. There could be chantings from both sides. But synopsis is something which should be 100% confirmed.Edward Zigma (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but the Hindu slogan "Jai Shree Ram" is mentioned in the begginng itself. Please see 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The reason for that there are many articles on riots specifically concentrated on that slogan. Do you have any article which concentrate on takbir slogan particularly on Delhi riots? The article you gave is reporting an incident.That's what I am saying.Edward Zigma (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The sources I gave refer to two different incidents, please see 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thats what I am saying. The sources confirmed that the in clashes the slogans were used. See Takbir. It has a whole section for its use in political warfare. I am saying that there is no denying that it should not be added. But on a few incidents, where other one got whole articles(see this, then it should be mentioned that its use was limited until we get a more reliable source on its widespread use. If it was used widespread, then obviously it should be added. Until than making it generalised doesn't make any sense.If you have any source for its generalised use then I will make a way for it myself.Edward Zigma (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The caravan source mentions an incident in details, nowhere claims that use the Hindu slogan was general and the muslim slogan was not general. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The article of itslef has heading with the name of slogan. 1)See this. 2)See this . 3)See this. Check these articles. One was generalised in the clash/riot/pogrom whatever you call it. But the other one has some incidents . There are many videos too on this slogan. But I have provided the news sources which are reliable. So I request to whoever will edit this that(Kautilya3, that please make the differentiation cleae which I have explained.I am limiting myself to this discussion only as I have decided to not to involve in this.Edward Zigma (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Three sources you cited give the hindu slogan in heading, but nowhere they say the hindu slogan was generalsed and the muslim slogan was not. Three sources have also been given of use of the muslim slogan. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Doesn't the slogan itself in the article headline make it obvious? I will leave this to WP:3O on this. The slogan was generalised, it was stated in caravan headlines itself. Rest others will decide.Edward Zigma (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No dear that's your take, mentioned in the headline does not mean the use of Hindu slogan more generalised than the muslim slogan, headlines are made to be catchy. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:8957:E684:E91F:592F (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma is right. "Jai Shri Ram" was reported pretty universally in all kind of contexts by practically all newspapers [22]. "Allah-o Akbar" only popped up in Deccan Chronicle/Asian Age (which is the same story) and in connection with Vinod Kumar's death. "Jai Shri Ram" is being used as a weapon in itself, being chanted while people are being beaten or killed, while "Allah-o Akbar" is only being mentioned as a slogan. Once again, you are demanding "equality" where it doesn't apply. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The muslim slogan is also similarly used in the violence, needs to be mentioned in the synopsis just like the hindu slogan. You say "the hindu slogan is used as a weapon in ifself while the muslim is only being mentioed as a slogan" quite strange both slogan yet one when chanted is used as a weapon in itself while the other is just a slogan. Equality does apply, but is not being applied here. 2405:204:1384:72A9:20A6:45A1:974F:EFF7 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is a false equivalence that's why. On one hand we have a lots of reliable sources with headlines themselves on other we have other with merely one or two reported incidents. I have explained what I want to convey. I didn't even open this discussion but it got open somehow. I have rest my case explaining above.Edward Zigma (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Kapil Mishra election relevance

Winged Blades of Godric, please check the source:

Kapil Mishra, a local politician with India’s leading Hindu nationalist party, had just lost an election. Acquaintances in the area, which now feels like a war zone, said he had been looking for a way to bounce back.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, hmm. Sorry :-( ∯WBG^converse 13:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is taking too much time and so I want to stay off it. However, I wonder why Kapil Mishra can be cited in this article and not Tahir Hussain. This edit by me was reverted!— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@Winged Blades of Godric:, all your edits from this morning seem to be problematic. For instance, this edit, which is summarised as "ce", removed the leading NYT citation, added an unsourced phrase in the lead paragraph (for which we have an edit request to revert below), removed the key incendiary sloganeering of Kapil Mishra and so on. I am afraid I have to revert all your edits wholesale. DBigXray, since you have interspersed your edits with WBOG's, you have made it harder to do a clean revert now. I think some of your edits will get lost too when I do a revert. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you have my consent for my revert. try to restore my edits if possible. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, we try to paraphrase sources and quoting a verbatim translation of Mishra's slogan is weird. I propose that the exact quote be mentioned in a note. As to the rest of issues, did another round of edits. Feel free to revert any/all of my edits. (Since 1RR is in force, I explicitly permit any and all reverts of my edits by K3 or DBX to not fall under such provisions.) ∯WBG^converse 20:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

43 people

Also 43 people have been killed to the number should also be updated Shubham2019 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Over forty persons dead. Both Hindus and Muslims, almost in equal measure. What is worse is the horror of several unidentified dead, in fact, close to a third of them, listed simply as “unknown”.

Here it is. Shubham2019 (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Shubham2019, 46 as per todays news. it is already update. please check. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Again the current lines are not relevant because the sources are outdated and were written before the death count reached 46. So the line majority of sufferers are muslims is not justified. Shubham2019 (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This quote against Tahir Hussain is needed

More so when an quote by victim's relative blaming Kapil Mishra is there.

Ankit's father, Ravinder Sharma, who also works with the Intelligence Bureau, has accused supporters of an Aam Aadmi Party leader, Tahir Hussain, of attacking Ankit and killing him.

"Get Hold of him (AAP leader). He is responsible for the deaths and he is on the run. Police should get hold of him," said one of the family members, speaking to NDTV.

References

2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

As per the request of the ip, we can have, "Speaking to NDTV, one of the family members of Ankit Sharma claimed that the Police should get hold of Tahir Hussain the Aam Aadmi Party corporator as he is responsible for many deaths and is on the run."—Spasiba5 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already a mention of Tahir Hussain in connection with the FIR. Nothing more can be said at this time. The ball is in the Police's court. The statements of the family would be WP:UNDUE since they are hearsay. They cannot be used especially when there is WP:BLP involved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Tahir Hussain has been cited as a person who was involved in the rioting by many citable references online, but he is only mentioned with respect to the murder of Ankit Sharma. Can you please add those sources with suitable sentences? I observed that Kapil Mishra is mentioned many times throughout the article but not the rioting Muslim politicians. Please correct it!—Spasiba5 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should remove the multiple mentioning of Kapil Mishra.—Spasiba5 (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, I think we should remove all mentions of Kapil Mishra. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray You are right. I think we should do that till the court makes some direct observations/statements against Kapil Mishra.Trojanishere (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Please be fair, an quote by victim's relative blaming Kapil Mishra is mentioned in a colored box.2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Majority of Muslims among the victims

Someone please unarchive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_2#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_29_February_2020 there was no consensus on use of majority of dead muslims. With out of 42 death, 15 muslims , 10 hindus, 17 unidentified, use majority muslim is not justified. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to unarchive it since the old discussion is available.

Can we have some more comments on this please? The current text states:

42 people were killed, the majority of whom were Muslims and 70 were injured.

References

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please also see The Print "Over forty persons dead. Both Hindus and Muslims, almost in equal measure. What is worse is the horror of several unidentified dead, in fact, close to a third of them, listed simply as “unknown”. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are the quotes.

Guardian

They killed or burned alive Muslims who could not escape and the victims were largely unprotected by the police. At least 37 people, almost all Muslims, were killed and many others beaten half to death.

CBS News

local reports suggest the majority of the dead and injured are Muslims.

Time

the official number of those killed has reached 42, a majority of them Muslims

Firstpost

Of the deceased, 15 were Muslims and 10 were Hindus

Wire

The Wire has identified 30 persons among the deceased, including from a list released by GTB Hospital and those released by the news agency PTI

⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

There is still no evidence that muslims suffered more. I suggest you remove the line altogether or write "Both hindu and muslim community of the area suffered greatly due to this tragedy, both in terms of lives lost, people injured or properties destroyed." Shubham2019 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

Of the 46 deaths, 30 have been identified: (BLP violation removed) https://thewire.in/communalism/delhi-riots-identities-deceased-confirmed 49.206.209.75 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There needs to be consensus about whether the article should add a victim list or not. El_C 15:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the list of names which were copy pasted here. The source does not state the religion of each victim. Pasting the list of names here and assigning and classifying them into a religion is speculation and original research, not to mention that this is highly irresponsible and insensitive. Please do not paste the list of victim names again.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

El C, This has been discussed and the consensus at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Victim_list is to remove the list. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 16:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"The source does not state the religion of each victim. Pasting the list of names here and assigning and classifying them into a religion is speculation and original research, not to mention that this is highly irresponsible and insensitive."

then the 42 dead majority muslims should not also be there, as the sources are op-eds, and only 42 dead is confirmed by NDTV not the majority of Muslims claim. please see 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Why are you guys taking reference from theprint which is a biased media. This source is not reliable as they Write whatever suits their agenda. Kaafir786 (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kapil Mishra snapshot

He is not the only cause of the riots. I suggest we use a snapshot of rioters instead of his snapshot!—Spasiba5 (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please join discussion at #Removing Kapil Mishra photo--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus was clear on that section that irrelevant photos should be removed. And since Spasiba (another editor) is now objecting to the pictures so I have removed them again. @DBigXray: WP:CON means "decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines", not "but I don't agree so there is no consensus". ML ⁹¹¹ 12:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Tahir hussain

This article is written totally one sided to defame Hindu. (BLP violation removed) also so many weapons has been captured from his house. All the proofs are against him, still this article says nothing about him, but telling totally false things. Mehul18292 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Tahir Hussain has been cited as a person who was involved in the rioting by many citable references online, but he is only mentioned with respect to the murder of Ankit Sharma. Can you please add those sources with suitable sentences? I observed that Kapil Mishra is mentioned many times throughout the article but not the rioting Muslim politicians. Please correct it!——Spasiba5 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, Mehul18292, kindly refer to above discussion, Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Role_of_Tahir_Hussain, where we have already discussed why the information is not added yet. Also, please contribute positively by providing a request in "Change X to Y format" with sufficient WP:RS provided. SerTanmay (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have added {{RBLPV}} above. SerTanmay and others, This page cannot be used to make such allegations related to living person. they are a violation of wP:BLP. Discussion at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Role_of_Tahir_Hussain please join there. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please treat Kapil Mishra equally. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article

Title change from "North East Delhi riots" to "2020 New Delhi Riots" or "2019-20 New Delhi Region Riots" or "CAA protest Delhi Violence"

Here are the reason for title change:-

1) Several locations of Wikipedia referring to "NE Delhi riots" are titled "2020 Delhi Violence". For example (a)

2) Riots are not confined to NE district. Riots are happening throughout delhi since 12/2019.

3) Popular media titles are "Delhi riots" or "Delhi violence". Only wikipedia has "NE Delhi" title. (1) (2) (3)

4) Wikipedia has always used "YYYY City-Name Riot" format. See the list [[23]]

5) There no article covering Delhi riots incidents outside NE district. A new article would become a super set of current article.

In Summary, "YYYY City-Name Riot" is accurate, popular and follows wikipedia norm. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOYEAR and a recent discussion at Talk:JNU_attack#Year_in_title --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Previous thread on title

• Previous thread on the topic from archive at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_1#Title
• The proposal of Delhi Riots is not acceptable since 1. This is only happening in NE delhi, 2. there are many many riots over the years in Delhi. We will need to add year in that case. Currently, the media and news are using NE Delhi riots/ NE Delhi clashes/ NE Delhi violence. so we can drop the year. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article

• Don't know about this - the talk page discussions are long and unclear, but the title is surely wrong - we should follow the usual style with 2020 New Delhi riots, or certainly not this. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Johnbod, the incidents did not happen in New Delhi. New delhi is in the center of Delhi state, while the incidents happen in 12 police stations in NE Delhi. So your title is misleading and incorrect. Media sources are using North East Delhi violence/riots/clashes. hence this title was used. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  How about 2020 Delhi riots? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC) PS Or 2020 North East Delhi riots? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler, it was not spread over Delhi. Only one lok sabha constituency . (12 Police station out of around 400) So the dab North East, is useful and also used widely by Media. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  No doubt locally, yes. But the riots have got huge international attention, without being referred to with the North East. I take your point about "New", but 2020 Delhi riots cannot be said to be ambiguous or unclear. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  2020 North East Delhi riots is useful but as per the naming policy, WP:NOYEAR, disambiguation "2020" can be droppped if the incident is unique in history. and This one North East Delhi riots is unique. I will start redirects to cover these titles though as they are valid search terms. The title Delhi riot implies that it was spread over entire state of delhi, which is not the case here. Hence my objection. The redirects do cover it ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  I can't be bothered to deal with the fine points of title policy, but surely, when India's capital region is as big as it is, and has a population larger than that of most countries, a more specific title is not a bad thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

All local media etc. the HIndu, the Indianexpress and the NDTV call it delhi violence not "riot" please see https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-violence-day-6-live-updates/article30939906.ece https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-northeast-violence-maujpur-babarpur-jaffrabad-mustafabad-6293445/ https://www.ndtv.com/topic/delhi-violence 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2020

North East Delhi riots → 2020 Delhi riots – Per WP:COMMONNAME and discussion above. About 1,50,000 results for "North East Delhi riots" while there are "97,10,000" results for "2020 "Delhi riots"" per https://news.google.com/

Page had been already moved by Jethwarp but was swiftly reverted back to this inferior title. Wareon (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Sources clearly state that a number of parts in Delhi and individuals residing outside NE Delhi were responsible for the violence,[24] and areas outside NE Delhi were affected by riots as they also had to go through same aftermath such as school shutdowns.[25][26] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 07:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per above Aswin8 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support There is a WP:NOYEAR policy. So It should be "Delhi riots" because all wikipedia articles about india riots cover entire geographic area which comes under 1 jurisdiction. Examples: "1992 Bombay riots" or "2002 Gujarat Riots" but ["2020 New Delhi violence"] misleadingly redirects to ["North East Delhi riots"]. This article is omitting major riots incidents which occurred in South delhi & other areas.All this riots have same underlying cause and same set of protesters, counter-protesters and organizer under same delhi commissioner jurisdiction. Even the persons arrested in south delhi riots are connected with north-east delhi protest/counter-protest and vice-verse. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - and also give the redirects the same level of protection as the article has, to prevent POV forks, as is evidently being discussed off-wiki by malcontents. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support — but I prefer the title, "CAA protest Delhi Violence"—17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs)
• Support for obvious , stated already. Won't repeat for sake of brevity. Please don't make Wiki a place for political wars. Quite unfortunate. Devopam (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is happening in the heart of Delhi. Abishe (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• In my view just naming the page Delhi riots is enough per WP:CONCISE, since we don't need "2020" to disambiguate which riots they are (no other title contains "Delhi riots"). 94.21.238.148 (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Copied from my talk page — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I had earlier moved the page not aware that Requested Move discussion is going on. Jethwarp (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Too much citations

There are too much citations mostly are low level, prejudiced personal opinions. Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is too terse to be useful. El_C 16:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Of victims and their religion

The victims in the riots were not predominantly Hindu or Muslim. Both were killed almost in equal numbers. The list of victims has almost equal number of Hindu and Muslim names. I suggest remove the line which says 42 people were killed mostly muslims to "42 people were killed with almost equal number of deaths from Hindu and Muslim community. " Shubham2019 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Shubham2019, the source does not say anywhere, about equal numbers you are claiming. Please provide a reliable source to verify your claim. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Only op-eds say majority muslims, NDTV source only gives count or the Wire list only gives names,no source say majority dead muslims. 47.31.154.216 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

see discussion above. and the sources. CBS, guardian are not oped. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray please check niether CBS nor Guardian link given says so. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

refs are also listed in the article. u can click to see them. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked nowhere the CBS or the Guardian links writes so. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:8957:E684:E91F:592F (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please also see The Print "Over forty persons dead. Both Hindus and Muslims, almost in equal measure. What is worse is the horror of several unidentified dead, in fact, close to a third of them, listed simply as “unknown”. https://theprint.in/opinion/lies-are-the-staple-of-every-communal-disturbance-and-delhi-riots-are-no-different/373589/ 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, the CBS News source (which is outdated) is basing its information on unspecified local sources and provides no further evidence to support its claim that the majority of casualties are Muslims. The Guardian article does not indicate that a majority of deaths were Muslim. Are these sources really good enough to support what we are claiming in the lead? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I have adjusted the wording a bit to make clear that we are not doing an accounting here. The journalists have given their impressions based on what they witnessed. We can't use half-baked "evidence" to contradict them. Until there is a full investigation by somebody, we have to leave it at that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on March 1 2020

1st major incident of riot in NE delhi happened on Dec 17, 2019. Please include the incident in timeline:-

On Dec 17 2019, Violent clashes occurred in Delhi's Seelampur area which is part of north east delhi injuring 50 people. Police retaliated with tear gas and batons against the stone throwing protesters. Several protesters and officers were injured. A police station was set on fire and buses were vandalised in the area (1) (2) Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It's already stated in Background. I'll give you this to reconsider this edit request. {{replyto|Can I Log In}} me if you still want this to be done. Can I Log In (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I checked the background [[27]], Background refers to Feb 22, 2020 event. In contrast, Above event happened on dec 17 2019. It is a riot in NE delhi over CAA. It is a notable event it should be included in timeline. Timeline should start with the 1st event. Dec 17 2019 is the first significant event i found. Unbiasedpov (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: I think this incident merits a place in timeline. Unbiasedpov (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Unbiasedpov: Your request does not seem to fit the timeline section as it is designated for February 23-future. I may insert your request in background since that is the most relevant section I could put it as your request is background information. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 18:20, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The request has been answered, Unbiasedpov — please do not revert me again, or you will be sanctioned. El_C 18:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

OTRS open disclosure

What seems like a coordinated attempt at suppression, OTRS has been for the last 24 hours spammed with messages relating to this article from over 100s of people/email accounts. They are treated as normal dispute resolution messages and referred to this talk page or to other venues. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Jonatan Svensson Glad. El_C 17:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

Change "Shortly after his statement, violent clashes started across North East Delhi with Hindu nationalist mobs vandalizing Muslim properties and mosques, carrying saffron flags and chanting Jai Shri Ram." to "Within hours, the worst Hindu-Muslim violence in India in years was exploding. Gangs of Hindus and Muslims fought each other with swords and bats, shops burst into flames, chunks of bricks sailed through the air, and mobs rained blows on cornered men."

For these are the exact words of the source given, not what is written first in the brackets. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Please paraphrase instead of copying a quote from the article. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 18:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: "Soon, the worst Hindu-Muslim violence in India in years was ensuing." will it do? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done:. I left some parts in the article in there, and replaced your rewording of "soon" with "Within hours". To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 18:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: Please see you have kept "with Hindu nationalist mobs vandalizing Muslim properties and mosques, carrying saffron flags and chanting Jai Shri Ram." which not given in the source, please remove it. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to introduce you to this source. That will deny your request to remove the chanting. To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 18:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You added a new source to decline edit request this is not proper, yet the source details another incident it is not related to alleged Kapil Mishra speech incitement, this is not appropriate in the synopsis. Here is a source claming a mob shouting Allah hu Akbar killed someone, add this to the synopsis. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:8957:E684:E91F:592F (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This remains unanswered. Someone please read.2405:204:3318:B8D4:FDA3:1EE2:2C99:CCE9 (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

This is correct Sourav123456 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on March 1 2020

Riot means disturbance of peace.All incidents of riots small or large that happened in NE Delhi over CAA should be included in timeline. Please include this incident in timeline:-

On Jan 19 2020, Clash erupted between anti-CAA protesters and Kashimir Hindu Pandits on the 30th anniversary of Hindu Pandit genocide in Kashmir. (1) (2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 17:53 March 1, 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page North East Delhi riots. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. qedk (t 桜 c) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am providing clear evidence that incident happened in North East Delhi at ground 0 of riots. This is the right article and right talk page. Please see the links. Unbiasedpov (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Not reliable sources. This is not the article relating to all riots, only the ones from 23 February. Further POV-pushing will result in sanctions. qedk (t 桜 c) 19:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is timeline starting on Feb 23

CAA Riots started in NE delhi in Dec 2019 why is timeline starting on a random date of Feb 23? What is so special about Feb 23? As per Wikipedia guideline, Timeline should start when the 1st event occurred. [reference] Unbiasedpov (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Guy in the video of "national anthem" died.....

This incidence has a specific significance in its own way. Reported by Huffington post here. In thr video police was forcing and brutalising people, they were singing national anthem and police was pulling hairs and saying take the azaadi. One of the guy in the video died. Shouldn't it be mentioned or not? Edward Zigma (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, It was discussed yesterday and consensus was to include. it is already there in the article, in police section. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I Apologise. I read the article but I missed it somehow. I will read it again.Sorry to disturb you.Edward Zigma (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done SerTanmay (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Tahir Hussain again

Spasiba5, you have added this passage late in the day today:

Subsequently, the AAP suspended Tahir Hussain from the primary membership of the party. He is supposed to have lead a group of 300 to 400 hardcore rioters during the violence. A number of videos had surfaced on social media, showing people allegedly throwing petrol bombs and stones from his rooftop, following which the Delhi Police have sealed Hussain's house besides registering a case against him. In one such video, Hussain is seen holding a wooden stick with smoke rising from his building. The police seized petrol bombs, acid, stones and bricks which were allegedly used by rioters during the violence from the house of Tahir Hussain. The police claim that he is now absconding.

References

Many many severe problems here:

• None of your citations have dates. And your text says "now". How is one supposed to know what time you are supposedly talking about?
• What is meant by "he is supposed to have led"? Who supposed?
• Your citation 3 ("Bennet, Coleman and Company") gives not only the allegations made of him, but also his response. Why did you omit his reponse?
• "The Police claim that he is now absconding". Isn't this out of date given your citation 3?
• Have you read any of the numerous discussion that have taken place on this talk page regarding Tahir Hussain?

This is a completely incompetent edit, and a WP:BLP violation. I am reverting it.

El_C, I need you to reconsider 1RR in the light of all the bad edits getting made today. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: I'm afraid that's not how AC/DS works. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

qedk there is an existing consensus on the thread on Tahir to not include these details, per wP:BLPNAME

User:Kautilya3, I note that Spasiba started a new thread, failed to get consensus for these edits on the talk page and still proceeded to add them anyway. I support a removal of these edits due to above reasons. QEDK, what is your opinion. A consensus on this thread can be used to revert it per consensus. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: The only exceptions that apply are specified in WP:3RRNO, you can rely on point #7 to revert, but that's putting yourself on thin ice imo. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, Thanks, yes, #7 seems to be appropriate here as the edits are a violation of (1)WP:BLPNAME and (2) an existing talk page consensus. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Enforced BRD seems to be needed here. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: I actually don't know if we're at that stage yet, but I've no objection to you (or anyone else) adding that enhancement to the existing 1RR regime. El_C 20:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: (edit conflict) You reply was lost in an edit conflict (and I conflicted with you now, how ironic). I cannot carry out administrative roles in this area (per my reading of WP:INVOLVED), so I'll leave it up to you (or any other administrator if they see it fit). --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy that. If in the next little while you still find 1RR to have become insufficient, please feel free to make that request again. El_C 20:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

QEDK, for the benefit of the lesser mortals can you please clarify what this enforced BRD is. I believe 1RR itself is a pain, I would not support anything that aggravates it. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: it would look like this:

l1RR + BRD

El_C 20:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C, thank you for explaining. Ok I support it. It seems that this makes 1RR less partial, as it brings both parties on equal footage. So yes, bring it on. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I support it as well. It seems to be a relaxation of 1RR in supporting the enforcement of consensus. BLP is exempt from even 3RR but it is "thin ice" as QEDK pointed out :-( -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know how to technically add it to the edit notice. I've never seen enforced BRD outside of AP2. El_C 20:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: There's detailed documentation at Template:Ds/editnotice. Remove the 1RR parameter and add your own, that's about it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@QEDK: yeah, in AP2 it's automatic. By all means, have at it (permission to do so as uninvolved admin granted). El_C 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

qedk,@El C: see below, quickl made it. never thought I will be doing this, since I hate 1RR, but any way. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

l1RR + BRD on IPA
Template:IPA AE

@DBigXray: I was referring to adding it to Template:Editnotices/Page/North East Delhi riots. El_C 20:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

El C, you can use Template:IPA AE/Edit notice ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Might want to log it now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done on my part (logged at AEL), as well. El_C 21:06, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Tahir Hussain and Kapil Mishra are not being treated equally. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:FDA3:1EE2:2C99:CCE9 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course not. Why will they be treated equally? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The WP seems only matter to when it comes to Tahir Hussain, not Kapil Mishra, strangely both are living persons. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:FDA3:1EE2:2C99:CCE9 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, both are living persons and the same policies apply. But how they are "treated" depends on what the reliable sources say about them, not our policies. People demanding "equality" are engaging in their own WP:OR, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

We must avoid any discussion on comparison of alleged crimes on talk pages. per OR and BLP. Wikipedia is not a court. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Demanding equality OR? they are not being treated equally not because RS issue, many RS have allegations against Tahir Hussain just as against Kapil Mishra, while an FIR is registered against Tahir Hussain, no one is convicted by an court of law, the article prominently menttions allegations against Kapil Mishra and just mentions FIR against Tahir Hussain. This is unequal treatment. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:FDA3:1EE2:2C99:CCE9 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Should be for both. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:FDA3:1EE2:2C99:CCE9 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not on this Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Not on this Wikipedia? 2405:204:3318:B8D4:FDA3:1EE2:2C99:CCE9 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the English Wikipedia. There is no mention of any two individuals, or any two subjects, being treated as "equal" anywhere in our policies. You should quit making such arguments.

If there is anything wrong with the way each subject is being treated, on their own, taking into account what the WP:RS say about them, then feel free to bring it up. That is all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The living person policy needs to be applied equally to living persons, more so when it is in the same artice. Yes there is everything wrong with the way each subject is being treated on their own in this article. 2405:204:1384:72A9:20A6:45A1:974F:EFF7 (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I understand the 1RR rule, but please let me know where I can read up about the BRD and BRD on IPA rules.—Spasiba5 (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/North East Delhi riots outlines what should be done. But unlike consensus required, there is no supplemental page devoted to it, I'm afraid. El_C 00:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2020

Please change " 42 people were killed, the majority of whom were Muslims" to "46 people were killed, deceased include both the Hindus and the Muslims"

As the four sources are given The CBS, the Guardian does not say majority muslims, the firstpost link says "Of the deceased, 15 were Muslims and 10 were Hindus, while the religious identities of the others is not clear." and the Time link is op-ed giving NDTV link for deceased not majority muslims. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F018:2066:9EB5:98D4 (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: being discussed in thread above. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Let the discussion continue. It is not right to write so when sources do not say so. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F018:2066:9EB5:98D4 (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Facts

Please put the right facts. The violence was started by Tahir hussain, who is absconding. All the arms and ammunitions have been found from his home. Most casualties have been hindus. An IB officer was brutally stabbed 400 times. This was a form of Jihad. You are putting the blame on hindus which is not true at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstralAngel (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

AstralAngel No one is "blaming" anyone. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If you have independent sources that have information not in this article, or describe events differently, please offer them. This is a contentious subject, and requires extreme collaboration and civility among editors of different viewpoints, religions, and beliefs to arrive at a consensus as to what the article should say. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Look. This is not something which can be allaged. It happened. Kapil Mishra gave a speech,[ which was "incendiary"(my pov)], and after that violemt started. And its written in that way. If we dont have any proof that he said this, then it could be alleged. But we have dont know how many media reports. He said provocative and violence started. The point is that the wiki article is showing sequence of event. He said something, people got mobilised and clashes started. How could something be "alleged" when it's happened. It could be alleged if we dont have any proof that he said that. Edward Zigma (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Look. This is not something which can be allaged. It happened. Kapil Mishra gave a speech,[ which was "incendiary"(my pov)], and after that violemt started. And its written in that way. If we dont have any proof that he said this, then it could be alleged. But we have dont know how many media reports. He said provocative and violence started. The point is that the wiki article is showing sequence of event. He said something, people got mobilised and clashes started. How could something be "alleged" when it's happened. Edward Zigma (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes agree with this proposal, we are just writing information about the riots. We are not the judge and jury. People have alleged that the violence was a result of intimidation by anti CAA protestors for more than a month, some have alleged it was Amanatullah Khan's (a local AAP MLA) speech, some say it was Waris Pathan's (15 crore is dominant on 100 crore remark), people have also filed complaint against Swara Bhaskar and others. Shubham2019 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

CAA and NRC/NPR both. Coz that's what all the protests are about. Edward Zigma (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Then please remove it Ryk72/Aswin8!—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Why have you mentioned my name in this topic's discussion, Spasiba5? Moreover I'm not an extended confirmed user, so I can't publish edits to the article for as long as it is extended protected. Aswin8 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

In the riots, a hindu officer of the intelligence bureau (IB), was brutally stabbed 200+ times, and killed. A muslim councillor of the AAP party was subsequently arrested for the murder.

Source: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-violence-autopsy-report-shows-over-200-injuries-on-ib-official-ankit-sharmas-body/articleshow/74366588.cms https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/tahir-hussain-aap-councillor-booked-for-ib-officers-murder-during-delhi-violence/articleshow/74378649.cms Raghavendran80 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That is already mentioned at North East Delhi riots#25 February—Spasiba5 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done, per above. El_C 02:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Correctly said .. india Infected with #RadicalIslamicTerrorism Rajat Rauth (talk) 06:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Bring in relevant sources and it will be edited out. Also read the above discussions and contribute constructively if you can. Shubham2019 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Who's gonna listen ..the top left liberals are editing this as per thier ideology and will Anandraghuvanshistar (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

doesnt help its already mentioned, because at the mention it is trying to make it sound like a political problem with AAP party, while its clearly a case of islamic violence killing a hindu police official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.75.217 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

Please change "The next day, a riot had ensued in North East Delhi with Hindu nationalist mobs vandalizing Muslim properties and mosques, while carrying saffron flags and chanting Jai Shri Ram." to "The next day, a sectarian violence had ensued in North East Delhi."

As it is not proper to mention the hindu slogan in synopsis, source of which refers to an incident, that does not generalise its use. 47.30.199.7 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is something for which consensus needs to be established for. So, please feel free to work collaboratively toward that end. Good luck. El_C 03:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please see https://theprint.in/india/anger-towards-other-side-echoes-in-hindu-dominated-areas-of-riot-hit-northeast-delhi/372502/ for damage to properties belonging to hindus.47.30.199.7 (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion.Kindly stick to the discussions relevant to the article. Shubham2019 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

The causes of riots are not Islamophobia, why making this riots as such, to maintain communal harmony you should delete it or change it to both Islamophobia and Hinduphobia Sourav123456 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Declined. You have not provided any reliable sources for this. If you do, you can re-open this request. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Op-eds by writers sitting abroad and their philosophical ideas do not carry any weight in Wikipedia. Kindly do not include any content from this article. Wikipedia is not an opinion piece, which unfortunately it is turning out to be.

Shubham2019 (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

the violence in Delhi is not a ‘riot’. It is targeted anti-Muslim brutality

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/01/violence-in-delhi-is-not-a-riot-it-is-targeted-anti-muslim-brutality

Opinion pieces aren't valuable sources here. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Muslim women recall horror of Molotov cocktails and arson

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51670096 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.87.105 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't just post links — there needs to be a discussion about how the given source and what it says can affect the article. El_C 08:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

Please can someone added more international reactions such as OIC reactions and statement from turkish president erdogan regarding violence in Delhi. I found source that adds the statement

• https://www.siasat.com/oic-condemns-anti-muslim-violence-india-1842843/
• https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200228-india-commiting-massacres-against-muslims-erdogan-says/

Please also add reactions from Indian diaspora like this.

• ‎https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/states/west-bengal/indian-diaspora-assembles-in-18-european-cities-to-condemn-the-delhi-riots/cid/1750148 182.1.51.6 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please set out the exact changes you wish to see implemented, with such a proposal being outlined in specific detail. Thanks. El_C 09:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hatting nonconstructive comments in violation of article talk page guidelines. El_C 08:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The equivalence you are making is false here. Yes the articles do mention some incidents, but they were not generalised as whole in all clashesEdward Zigma (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC) We are not court. If court will conclude this reason then allegedly word will be removed. That’s what we do!— Harshil want to talk? 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC) If Ishrat Jahan who is arrested for incitement of Riots through hate speech is not worth mentioning then remove the incitement section altogether. Because there is no point writing about Kapil Mishra who has not been arrested for any such activity. There is only a PIL in court seeking the FIR against him. Thus it seems that Kapil Mishra is being made the villain without substantial evidence against him. Shubham2019 (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC) The wiki article on Delhi Riots is wrong and misleading How can you it say that hindu attacked Muslims when Its now clear that muslims have acid bag, petrol bombs, stones at their homes and major Muslim leader committed crime . Name :Tahir Hussain( wanted and currently absconding) Krish013 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Let's not make this about biased opinions. Stick to facts. There's been damage from both sides. Deepsea20 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC) What about the young Hindu girls who were raped and thrown in the drain Deepsea20 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC) WORLD INFECTED WITH RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM We can all see what is happening all over the world and after seeing this, I feel that every country is suffering a great loss from Islamic terrorism. The main reason for rioting in India is Islamic terrorism. Rajat Rauth (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Whoever cited the article from The Atlantic must read the article in its entirety instead of just going by the title. In fact, I was expecting that some one would cite that article when I opened this topic. The article was purely one sided as the contents of this wiki page. It does not even try to compare the number of deaths that occurred on both sides. Of the 40 - 50 casualties that occurred as of this writing, equal number of Hindus lost their lives. The cited article never stated that. It is quite clear that the author and the person who cited the article are in clear rush to push a political agenda. This must be definitely reported to and looked into by the admin. The reference to the word pogrom must be removed from the article. Kunapulir (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC) It was an Anti CAA riot to scare Hindus The riot was started by anti CAA protesters who were Muslim, as clearly seen in videos of rioters pelting stones on police, throwing petrol bombs on houses/hindu schools. Most damage was done from house of a Muslim AAP party leader Tahir Hussain where arms were stored by rioters. It was an riot to scare Hindus, incited by words of AIMIM leader Waris Pathan. Destruction to Hindu houses and shops were targeted, by marking Muslim shops shutters with words "No CAB". Remaining all hindu/jain shops were burnt. Pritmr (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) List of Hate Speaches 1. Arfa Khanum- video link <https://twitter.com/vivekagnihotri/status/1221371273130807296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1221397056482238464&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thequint.com%2Fnews%2Fwebqoof%2Fthe-wire-journalist-creating-islamic-state-bjp-shares-clipped-video-fact-check> 2. Waris Pathan hate speach - viedeo <https://twitter.com/i/status/1230452211366281217> and video -20 feb 2020 <https://www.facebook.com/dustakadvertising/videos/223059248819653/> 3. Speach by amantulla khan video link - date 16 feb 2020 <https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=459073954810129> 4. Stone pelting by JNU students News 6 jan 2019 <https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/jnu-violence-police-collect-cctv-footage-from-campus-multiple-complaints-received-1634274-2020-01-06> 5. The riots in dlehi on 23 Feb was pree planned. - riote report by news <https://twitter.com/i/status/1233334169276686337> on 23 feb 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.76.89.225 (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Caused by Hinduphobia and not Islamophobia PritiTripathi68315 (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC) PritiTripathi68315, can you provide reliable sources to back up your word? Otherwise, none of this is going to be considered. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:36, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

CAA

It is absolutely necessary to say exactly what is CAA and how it will do good or bad to Indian citizen, specifically Indian Muslims. This is the central point and is missing in the article. Vasantray Vachhani (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Some background that provides context can include a summary from and about that material, yes. El_C 08:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this proposal. I think a short line or 2 may be helpful. User:Kautilya3 thoughts ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

CAA plus NRC/NPR both. Coz that's what all the protests are about.Edward Zigma (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I added an explanation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nicely done, Kautilya3. El_C 09:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A clause or sentence or so does seem like a good thing; and Kautilya3's edit is appreciated. However, in the interests of strict accuracy, we might be better with something based on the text from the CAA article - providing a <fast-tracked> path to Indian citizenship for ... migrants of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, ... who arrived from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. or similar. Specifically, it is only particular bordering countries of origin (doesn't include China, Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan) and only specific religious minorities. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC) - struck extraneous section - Ryk72 ^talk 11:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ryk72, I dont have strong opinion. But I think User:Kautilya3's update is just what is needed. News article covering this riot do not go into the nuts and bolts of CAA. they give a high level overview of CAA and then dive straight into the subject of riots. Most of the people are already aware of CAA protests and those who are not, can click the link to understand more. There are limits of how deep in detail a background section can go. Over elaboration seems to be WP:UNDUE here as it distracts from the topic of the riot. So I oppose addition of these details. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that in response to the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which allows fast-tracked naturalisation for religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan is significantly more wordy than the current in response to the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which allows fast-tracked naturalisation for immigrants from neighbouring countries belonging to all religions except Islam. I am sure that is has the advantages of accuracy & specificity. - Ryk72 ^talk 11:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot say what you are trying to say but I find wikipedia pretty welcome place, where a lot of concerns are duly noted if you open a talk page discussion. The wikipedia even allows pics of prophet Mohammad which is strictly not allowed in Islam. So I really think your allegations are baseless. If they were biased, they would not allow things which are not allowed. Every word on wikipedia is curated and can be challanged in talk page. I would advice you to open talk page, if you think something written is wrong. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Islamophobia as a cause for the riots

It does not seem to be fair citing "Islamophobia" as a reason for the riots, since it is a bit of a stretch in this context. Furthermore none of the sources cited for Islamophobia actually contain that word, let alone clearly state it as the cause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXoZvLkd70E

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51639856

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-violence-ashok-nagar-school-mosque-6288437/

https://theprint.in/india/never-thought-hindu-muslim-riots-are-possible-in-delhi-weve-always-co-existed-peacefully/370982/

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/up-in-flames-firing-stone-pelting-continue-no-policeman-in-sight/article30917600.ece Aswin8 (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Have not yet reviewed the video, which is from NDTV's verified YouTube channel, but, on review, Aswin8 is correct - the other sources do not contain "Islamophobia". This needs sourcing, or removal. Either way, these sources should be removed from this section. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Dey subrata, Sarvatra, UrbanCentrist, Datta, Aman.kumar.goel, My Lord, , SerTanmay, A14i12, DiplomatTesterMan, Sachi bbsr, Trojanishere, S. M. Nazmus Shakib, Vanamonde93, WashingtonPrime, Souniel Yadav, Gayatri9876, Edward Zigma, Shubham2019, WhiteTheme, Spasiba5, please do voice in your opinions regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment

 Done Having confirmed that none of the references mention Islamophobia—including the NDTV video (that's 11 minutes, 45 seconds of my life I'll never get back)—I removed Islamophobia from the Infobox as a cause. NedFausa (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Attack on Police Officers

I think this section should also be added.. Many police officers have also been injured . Anandraghuvanshistar (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anandraghuvanshistar:, there's mention of injured police officers in the article where's there's a source. Unless there's a huge amount of content additions should probably go into the current timeline subsections. Whether that approach or a section you'd need to provide an initial draft (or drafts if adding smaller edits) of what should be added, and, especially critically, reliable secondary sources covering it Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Reaction in Europe and America

In many cities in Europe and America people protested and rallied outside the Indian Embassies and consulates.

We needs to add this in reaction section. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I saw something similar in one of the sources I reviewed earlier today. I'd agree that is warrants some inclusion in the Reaction section. Will try to draft something over the next day; but if anyone else wants to put somethign in, please do so. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just the present lead/introduction and background is enough. However, we should mention Kapil Mishra, Ishrat Jahan and Tahir Hussain, the main perpetrators.—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/delhi-violence-riots-death-toll-6294461/ ∯WBG^converse 15:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not fully aware of the intricate chronological details of the riot/pogrom but my overall sentiments fairly align with Varshney. When we are mentioning JSR/saffron flags, we ought to also mention about Muslim mobs crying Allahu Akbar (see reports by The Wire on the very first two days) ; the initial aggressor is difficult to pinpoint and it indeed seemed like a communal riot for around the first couple of days before state-complicity rendered it one-sided. Reading the current lead, there is a distinct feeling that it was entirely perpetuated by Hindu nationalist mobs on largely-ideal Muslim victims, which I don't deem to be true. ∯WBG^converse 15:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, this is an op-ed. Can you find some better sources? If yes, let's make a draft and add it after achieving consensus. SerTanmay (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Not touching this article in any extensive manner unless a few months pass and facts become more clear. Maybe, Kautilya3 and Harshil169 have some idea on using this piece, and whether my broader points are correct. ∯WBG^converse 06:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, I don't want to be active editor on this article due to outing and off-wiki harassment. Like, Prakash Javadekar did press conference after Sonia Gandhi and alleged AAP-Congress for it; this was missing. Another point missing was refutation of allegations by Kapil Mishra and . There are significant gaps; I am just addressing gaps here.- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Truncated timeline & limited geography makes this article present POV and OR narrative

note: Some of this point had limited discussions in talk pages but it needs larger set of editors to chime in.

Article suffers from several peculiar omission violating NPOV and ends up creating original research narrative due to following reasons:

1) Wrong Timeline: Editors are insisting that timeline must start on Feb 23rd 2020. Incidents which happened in same locality with same issue & same set of actors,before Feb 23rd 2020 should not be included in the article. There is no explanation on Feb 23 2020. For example,Editor wrote "This is not the article relating to all riots, only the ones from 23 February. In another example, Editor wrote "timeline section is designated for February 23-future".

2) Truncated Geography: All wikipedia articles about india riots cover entire geographic area which comes under jurisdiction. Examples: "1992 Bombay riots" or "2002 Gujarat Riots" but ["2020 New Delhi violence"] redirects to ["North East Delhi riots"]; Thus, Omitting major riots incidents which occurred in South delhi & other areas.All this riots have same underlying cause and same set of protesters, counter-protesters and organizer under same delhi commissioner jurisdiction. Even the persons arrested in south delhi riots are connected with north-east delhi protest/counter-protest and vice-verse.

3) Original research "title & timeline":- Popular media title is "Delhi violence". See examples: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-violence-day-6-live-updates/article30939906.ece https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-northeast-violence-maujpur-babarpur-jaffrabad-mustafabad-6293445/ https://www.ndtv.com/topic/delhi-violence. Only wikipedia has original research title "NE Delhi riots". Redirecting "2020 New Delhi Riots" to filtered set of events meeting specific geographic and date is POV.

Questions:-

1) Does the choice of smaller geography, arbitrary timeline, and name of article meet wikipedia standard of NPOV & "No original Research"?

2) Is the timeline meeting the dictionary meaning of word timeline?

3) Should "2020 Delhi Riots" redirect to "North East Delhi Riots"? If not either current-article should be expanded and renamed to "Delhi Violence" or a new article titled "Delhi Violence" should be created.

Inviting all editors to discuss Fowler&fowler Johnbod DbigXray Can I Log In qedk Gayatri9876 Sarvatra Souniel Yadav Shubham2019 LEPRICAVARK AstralAngel Raghavendran80 Datta UrbanCentrist DrAshishPandey Psha12 Aswin8 Kkartiki18 Aman.kumar.goel Bhav2916 ML Sanwat A14i12 Spasiba5 Sourav123456 Vasantray Vachhani Anandraghuvanshistar Winged_Blades_of_Godric

Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes it has been nine days. Riots were under control on 27 February. Shubham2019 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There's already a discussion on "End date", please contribute there. SerTanmay (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on March 2 2020

Please add

This is a highly contested topic with dozens of notices and warning on Talk page but no notice on article page. Appropriate notices and warnings should be placed on article page. At minimum, Article page should say that "Neutrality of this article is under dispute".

Inviting all editors to chime in Fowler&fowler Johnbod DbigXray Can I Log In qedk Gayatri9876 Sarvatra Souniel Yadav Shubham2019 LEPRICAVARK AstralAngel Raghavendran80 Datta UrbanCentrist DrAshishPandey Psha12 Aswin8 Kkartiki18 Aman.kumar.goel Bhav2916 ML Sanwat A14i12 Spasiba5 Sourav123456 Vasantray Vachhani Anandraghuvanshistar Winged_Blades_of_Godric Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I placed a POV tag on top of the article, but it was removed by an admin called Vanamonde93. An AE request was filed by Aman Kumar Goel against the user DBigXray for his POV pushing, but it was closed with prejudice without any action.—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. A matter for discussion rather than an edit request. Unbiasedpov please stop the mass pings. That is inappropriate. El_C 17:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My involvement here has been limited. Looking over the history of this article and the talk page, it looks to me like the neutrality of this article is disputed mostly by drive-by editors and POV-pushers, resulting from off-wiki canvassing, who want to complain about "unfairness" without bothering understanding Wikipedia's editorial policies about reliable sources and undue weight. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I saw that you have mentioned that mass pinging is inappropriate. I have asked for the opinions of others about Ishrat Jahan here, but hardly any one replied. How do I get every editor here to at least take a look at it? What is the appropriate way to do so?—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks to me like at least six different people replied in that section. I don't see a consensus, or even a rationale as to why the fact being discussed is significant. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Nonconstructive complaint hatted. El_C 17:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
deliberate misinformation This page is a deliberate misinformation campaign which hides truth and facts of violent acts by Muslim community. Publish the whole truth. Deepsea20 (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Find reliable sources (sources that comply with WP:RS) and we'll include them. Wikipedia doesn't publish material based on opinion pieces and unreliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Article biased, sources attempting to portray only Hindus as perpetrators

As detailed as the articles on Wikipedia are, majority of crucial information and facts have not been presented in unbiased manner in this article. Names of identified radical Islamic rioters/ terrorists such as Shahrukh, Tahir Hussain and their roles in inciting violence, Tahir Hussain's role in murder of IB officer Ankit Sharma, harboring rioters/ terrorists in his own house along with ammunition, stones, petrol bombs, acid bombs, him being on the run from Delhi Police; such facts are not clear in the article. The article attempts to draw attention to unconfirmed rumors such as Hindu groups being involved in inciting violence, while there are no official reports/ statements by any authorities confirming the same. It is unethical, and directly demeaning to Hindus to be portrayed as the perpetrators in this article, when the officials in charge have made no such conclusions. Exclusions of the major names aforementioned who led the violence against the common people of Delhi, CRPF personnel and Delhi Police; is misleading to readers. This article does not live up to the impeccable reliability, correctness and fullness of Wikipedia articles, as it lacks the most important facts and identities of perpetrators behind the said unfortunate riots and at the same time only accusing a particular religious identity, when the State authorities have made absolutely no such conclusions. It is important that the said facts be made visible to the readers to have a correct understanding of the events mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashudafashuda (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

For that, find a news article that says what you want, fill the details as per this format:-

To cite a news article with a credited author:-

<ref>{{cite news |last= |first= |date= |title= |url= |work= |location= |access-date= }}</ref>

To cite a news article with no credited author:-

<ref>{{cite news |author=<!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> |title= |url= |work= |location= |date= |access-date= }}</ref>

and post it here, we will add it if it is appropriate!—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

If that is too much to do, just give us the url (the webpage). Thanks!—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Your claim that, "The article attempts to draw attention to unconfirmed rumors such as Hindu groups being involved in inciting violence, while there are no official reports/ statements by any authorities confirming the same" is justified. I request others for comments.—Spasiba5 (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Official reports would be a primary source, and so wouldn't be cited in any case. If we weren't able to have articles until the government had confirmed it, we'd lose quite a few articles Nosebagbear (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

We don't need Government confirmation but the whole article is biased. Hindu groups have been maligned throughout the article, but if we want to add something about Ishrat Jahan or other Muslim perpetrators, DBigXray reverts us!—Spasiba5 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read this discussion about Ishrat Jahan. He says Wikipedia is not a newspaper and is keen to avoid mentioning her in this article!—Spasiba5 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes this article seemed biased to me only against Hindu rioters, like what you said. Gone are the days when Wikipedia used to be a neutral platform! Arka 92 22:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2020

The origins of the Delhi Riots can be dated back to December 2019, when a group of students gathered at JNU to protest against the government. This protest turned violent when a group of holligans barged into the campus and incited violence against the student protesters.

Then in January Shaheen Bagh tragedy happened. This was a religious clash between Hindus and the Muslims.

Popular Front of India has received funds to incite this protest. Popular Front of India is a jihadist organisation known to have stakes at dismantling the BJP ruled Indian government. Sanjrath (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, nothing to do. There is no request above to change anything, add anything, or include any sources. Please be specific, and make a request in the form "change X to Y". This talk page is not a forum for discussing the topic, it is for discussing improvements to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

SDPI members were paid Rs.10000 to attack leaders supporting CAA in Bengaluru according to the Police

References

There is still no specific edit request here. Again,  Not done, nothing to do. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Undue quotation on section

WP:UNDUE quotation on the section on North_East_Delhi_riots#Incitement_of_violence should be removed, which is made by the father of a victim Rahul Solanki. As the matter is too recent, we should avoid using quoteboxes for now, coz nothing much has been confirmed yet Azuredivay (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes that single quotation is WP:UNDUE and is being used to allege a WP:BLP of a crime which is far from being concluded. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 19:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

So please remove it. I suggest that the number of times "Hindu groups" are mentioned in the article should be reduced. A lot of people are complaining to Wikipedia about it.—Spasiba5 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done by Aman.kumar.goel, and I agree. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am ok with the quotebox going. But I am troubled by Spasiba5's prescription for "reducing Hindu groups" because some people complain about it. That is not WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not people that might or might not complain. That is quite backwards. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any group who might feel offended. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a pogrom

According to Cambridge dictionary

A pogrom is an organized killing of a large group of people, esp. Jews, because of their religion or race https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pogrom

What happened in Delhi can in no way be classified as a pogrom especially when there were equal number of deaths on both sides. Kunapulir (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In the context of this article, the word pogrom is clearly inflammatory. We must therefore be certain that its use is justified by WP:RS. As it now stands, the Infobox parameter "methods" lists pogrom, and Category:Pogroms is affixed to the bottom of the page. There is no direct reference to support either of these uses. Instead, the Bibliography includes an article from ThePrint website: "The Delhi pogrom 2020 is Amit Shah's answer to an election defeat". As its tendentious title suggests, this is opinion, not news reportage, and indeed the piece is clearly labeled Opinion in a red box atop the headline. Shivam Vij, a contributing editor at ThePrint, is entitled to express his opinion. However, we at Wikipedia are not obligated to accept it as dispositive. Accordingly, I am purging the word pogrom from our article, and removing Shivam Vij's editorial from the Bibliography. I request that these edits not be reverted without consensus. NedFausa (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

According to Collins dictionary, an organised violence against group of people for reasons could also be a pogrom. There's nothing totaking it seriously. Until now I have seen enough articles(authentic ones) that most of the places the attacks were organised and selectively shops and houses are burnt. So the word is just to signify that. The use of the word for explaination is just to explain that. Edward Zigma (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: please provide a WP:RS to support using pogrom in this Wikipedia article. The source should quote a social scientist with established expertise in this area, or a government official with first-hand knowledge, etc. An editorialist with a partisan ax to grind is insufficient. NedFausa (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There are various articles on this. And various international condemnation from various organisations and personalities has atleast est. a fact by now that violence was one sided. Like OIC condemnation , Iran condemnation. But if you want expert saying it, check this . These things getd deduced.Edward Zigma (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Edward Zigma Thank you. The first two links do not mention pogrom, but the foreignpolicy.com story is exactly what I had in mind. However, despite being prompted to classify the violence in Delhi as a pogrom, Professor Ashutosh Varshney does not do so. None of his direct quotations contain the word pogrom. Accordingly, we cannot use this as a reference without violating WP:SYNTH. NedFausa (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You may be interested in the following article from The Atlantic written by Mira Kamdar. Kamdar was a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, as well as its acting director, and is currently a faculty member in Journalism at Paris Institute of Political Science.

Kamdar, Mira (28 February 2020). "What happened in Delhi was a pogrom". The Atlantic.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes That's just what we need. Thanks. I'll restore pogrom to the Infobox and category list, with a citation to this source. NedFausa (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa It is just an opinion piece. As already clarified above, "pogrom" will require much better sourcing than drive by rumors. I would suggest revert until academics sources or mainstream narrative confirms that this was a pogrom. Wareon (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wareon, it is not "just" an opinion piece. It is an authoritative assessment by the author of four books on India who has been a member of the Editorial Board of The New York Times (2013–2017), where she wrote on international affairs. Mira Kamdar's work has also appeared around the world, including The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, The Times of India, The International Herald Tribune, Tehelka, and the Far Eastern Economic Review. She has provided expert commentary to CNN International, Bloomberg TV, the BBC, and Radio France, among others. This particular piece is published by The Atlantic, an established WP:RS. If you can cite a source with comparable credentials who has asserted that the North East Delhi riots are not a pogrom, I encourage you to submit it here for consideration. NedFausa (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are less scrutinized than actual WP:RS. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not a pogrom. Whatever be Mira Kamdar's creds, this is highly opinionated and biased piece. Nazis killing thousands of Jews is pogrom, 1984 riots in Delhi were pogrom, not this. Even, 2002 Gujrat riots weren't pogroms. I would encourage Administrator interference for resolution of this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawford88 (talk • contribs)

Above discussion/references do not substantiate use of pogrom as per wiki rules. --Jaydayal (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It also looks like we're stating an editorial opinion in Wikipedia's voice. I have removed it from the infobox. It's fine if we want to add some prose about who wrote this opinion and why, if the author is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Heres the non opinion news articles you should check. They are calling it pogroms.First,second, third. There are enough news articles I think. Requesting Kautilya3,DBigXray,El_C to take a look a look in this self consensus going on hereEdward Zigma (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, I support your decision to add "pogrom" back. SerTanmay (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Not a decision but enough news articles have called it directly now SerTanmayEdward Zigma (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this article.

While any Wikipedia article is accessed by public. It is expected that it will contain all basic information related to topic. The riots were organised anti-Hindu riots-

The content is highly biased in nature. Hence, we can say that this article is not neutral in any way.

It has been well established by now that the riots were pre-planned. However, it was anti-Hindu in nature.Following incidents prove-:

1. People in Shiv Vihar took away their children from school,soon riots started.
2. Rajdhani school in area owned by minority community member was turned into attack post. To target gullible Hindus. It is alleged that automatic weapons were also fired.
3. Another school just next to Rajdhani school was burnt by rioters. This belonged to a hindu person.
4. 7 truck bricks, petrol bombs,Acid pouches,Slingshots found at Tahir Hussain's house.
5. The drain near Tahir Hussain's house from which several dead bodies had been recovered. Ankit Sharma's body was recovered from this drain.
6. Another dead body of a minor girl was also recovered. All dead bodies did not had any clothes with brutal assault marks and mutilation. As per forensic report Ankit Sharma's body was stabbed 400 times, by atleast 6 people, over 2-3 hours.
7. Its been confirmed by Ankit Sharma's brother that Ankit was dragged by anti-CAA rioters.There is related article published by Wall Street Journal. This is a misleading article. Because, Ankit's brother denied giving any statement to WSJ.
8. Multiple slingshots targeting Hindu community found at multiple sites. These were inspired Syrian conflict. These kind of articles can't be prepared in single day. https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/raining-stones-and-bombs-rioters-used-makeshift-catapults-and-slingshots-to-target-people-watch/558767
9. These riots were not started by Kapil Mishra's speech. The rioters were waiting for Trump's Visit to Delhi. https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/riots-organised-to-defame-india-during-trump-visit-says-bjp-citing-umar-khalid-clip/story-t19i357criz9MNdX0n8XHI.html
10. The rioters were mainly anti-CAA protesters. They were well organised with dangerous materials.
11. It has been found that in multiple minority dominated areas, shops with 'No NRC No CAA' were spared but those without these were burnt.
12. There is widespread one-sided reporting claiming Minority people as victims. But reports of assault on Hindus are being suppressed. None of the mainstream channels visited Hindus for 1st hand accounts of violence.
13. These riots have started as fallout of Anti-CAA protest only.
14. This fact must be noted that once Tahir's role was confirmed in riots, several attempts were made to whitewash his acts. In one of such attempts a backdated video using greenscreen video creation process was made and circulated.
15. A new kind of anti-semitism, anti-Hinduism is being driven by international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssvikram (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If you have specific changes to suggest, please propose sentences, where they should go, what to change, and what sources to cite. It would be best if you made separate requests. Most of your list above is unsourced. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Here Anachronist:-

The police seized petrol bombs, acid, stones and bricks which were allegedly used by rioters during the violence from the house of Tahir Hussain.

Tahir Hussain is supposed to have lead a group of 300 to 400 hardcore rioters during the violence.

A number of videos surfaced on social media, showing people allegedly throwing petrol bombs and stones from his rooftop, following which the Delhi Police have sealed Hussain's house besides registering a case against him. In one such video, Hussain is seen holding a wooden stick with smoke rising from his building.

The police seized crates of petrol bombs from rioters in Mustafabad which indicate that it was a planned conspiracy similar to what happened at the residence of Tahir Hussain.

The BJP alleged that the riots were planned so as to defame the country during the visit of US president Donald Trump, citing a speech by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid.

Waris Pathan incited Muslims to turn violent by saying that 15 crore Muslims are more than a match for 100 crore Hindus.

Add what you want from these sentences with the cited references!14:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now Of all the claims given, this one is the most salient:

• Tahir Hussain is supposed to have lead a group of 300 to 400 hardcore rioters during the violence.

All of the other claims in the proposal are used to arrive at the conclusion given by this one claim. The source you've chosen for this statement suggests that it's synthesis — newslaundry.com — which describes itself as a news, current affairs and media analysis organization. This source is still pending review from Media Bias Factcheck, but I would suggest taking the analysis made by it with a grain of salt. Regards,  Spintendo  18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The citation given for this statement is WP:FAKE. Newslaundry did not suppose Tahir Hussain led a group. Bein a "Media Analysis" piece, it narrated that Republic TV claimed it. The claim isn't even worth the bits that it is written on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

@Spintendo: Thanks for taking the time to look this over. I thought it was a good edit request and deserved some attention but I haven't had the time today to examine it in detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

I would request to publish the information only from the confirmed govt sources, like police dept. This page creates wrong perception without having enough evidence and opinion is biased. The author could be from any political party doesn't look like have neutral reporting. 203.244.219.1 (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done See our sourcing policy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

, a riot had ensued in North East Delhi with Anti CAA protesters pelted stone on Pro CAA protesters & that led to a Hindu-Muslim riots and properties being damaged from both side, while gruops were chanting chanting Jai Shri Ram & Allah-hu-Akbar. 165.225.104.129 (talk) 06:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, nothing to do, no specific changes requested and no reliable sources offered. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Many news fron Caravan to Aljazeera report news as "Anti Muslim riot" "Anti Muslim Carnage"

The news articles are itself terming this as "Anti-Muslim",[28], then shouldn't it be better to use Islamophobia as a cause. Opened discussion coz its better instead of undoing the edit. @NedFausa: Edward Zigma (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why you are looking for the worst sources? Caravanmagazine is an unreliable blog while Al-Jazeera has been convicted of promoting fake news, see Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. Wareon (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, "anti-Muslim" (which means opposing anything Muslim) does not equate to "Islamaphobia" (which means fear of Islam). Please see WP:SYNTHESIS; we don't do that on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point. I doesnt come across any news which calls it outright Islamophobic, all news articles are calling it "Anti-Muslim" until now. Should we add "anti-Muslim" if that's the case?Edward Zigma (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the term should be a noun (a cause is a noun), and "anti-Muslim" is an adjective (unlike "Islamaphobia" which is a noun). Perhaps "anti-Muslim sentiment"? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, I fear you may be oversimplifying an extremely complex situation. The Caravan′s subhead, sweepingly referring to "Delhi's anti-Muslim carnage," appears next to a photo of Mohammed Zubair, who was (the caption explains) "attacked by group of Hindu right-wing men." Are all Hindu right-wing men anti-Muslim? Might some, at least, be motivated by something other than being anti-Muslim? Wikipedia needs to be wary about painting with too broad a brush. NedFausa (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we second-guess what a source means when it publishes something? I'm against stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, but at some point if multiple sources describe an incident as "anti-Muslim", then isn't that sufficient for Wikipedia to do the same? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah then it should be better to remove it as well. Islamophobia is not mentioned in any prominent source. It would be better to not to use it until proper consensus achieved or prominent news media est. it.Edward Zigma (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, naturally if a preponderance of WP:RS call the violence in general anti-Muslim, or brand a specific incident that way, we are justified in citing those sources. But I honestly don't know whether or not there is such agreement among the media, either in India or internationally, about an event with so many moving parts. Before we attach that label, I'd like to be sure it really describes what most sources have reported. NedFausa (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the article doesn't currently contain the word "Islamaphobia" anywhere, and "anti-Muslim" doesn't appear in the "caused by" section of the infobox. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Trustfullness and truthfullness of left biased sources/references

Many admins/mod/editors are not taking Opindia, SwarajyaMag, Deccan Chronicle, JihadWatch.org and many other sources mentioning pre-planned nature of anti-Hindu Delhi riots as biased while many sources with history of intentional biased news like WSJ, The Wire, Quint, Carvan and others are considered as valid and truthfull. Why this discrimination ? Ravi1991ss (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Deccan Chronicle should not be in that list.

The others are not mainstream news organisations and, indeed, they are not regarded as reliable sources. See WP:NEWSORG.

If what they say is fact, we would expect it to appear in mainstream news. If it doesn't, it isn't. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Only Deccan Chronicle and WSJ are reliable sources in that list. Most of the other sources are never used, though some of them are still used but attribution is needed; this happens only when better source isn't available. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 08:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Deccan Chroncile has been cited in the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2020

Dear Sir, I feel behaviors of Doctors also should be updated on this page as I have gone thru the news on THE WEEK with headline - From shaming patients to asking full form of CAA, how doctors failed Delhi violence victims. Here is the link - https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/03/02/from-shaming-patients-to-asking-full-form-of-caa-how-doctors-failed-delhi-violence-victims.amp.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0DSprCLJPMbrwFwUNU-QSiqgMJoF0G8skWvXweXJZzy5KA54cQDxSiRtI

Regards, Kalim ullah Kalimedia123 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kalimedia123: Can you suggest a brief sentence to add? The source looks OK. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper

Wikipedia is not a newspaper and so I suggest that we should reduce the length of this article. I request you all to comment.—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It will probably happen in time when things have calmed down and coverage get a little distance. As of now, with the large amount of coverage in WP:RS (and non-WP:RS), it's hard to see what is of lasting importance or even reasonably correct. This is fairly normal with articles of this kind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, you can probably start by removing the references cited that don't meet the WP:RS criteria.—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Are there any specific publishers you are thinking of? I see a few "Twitter", but context matters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Time

Requesting a couple of edit-less hours, wherein I will be heavily editing the article. I have worked with these types of articles earlier (1990 Bijnor Riots) and this will compete to be the worst article, I've ever seen in domain of Indian politics. ∯WBG^converse 10:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 WBG El_C DBigXray :Just a point that Spasiba5 and NedFausa are changing the page without consensus and self declared consensus. Please look into that. Theu have removed the "Pogrom" and other discription without proper discussion from the article to basically suit the POV. And many things are changed by them slowly. Take a look into this.Edward Zigma (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

No, I removed "pogrom" based on the consensus I saw in a discussion above. A single opinion piece using that word, even if the piece was written by an expert, does not constitute a reason for us to state it in Wikipedia's voice. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BRD cycle implies that editors can edit the article, others can revert them, and a discussion follows. It bothers me that Spasiba5 fails to discuss.

He has not yet made any response in defence of his #Tahir Hussain again edit. If he continues this pattern of commando editing, I will ask for him to be sanctioned. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I read what you asked, but I observed that you had reverted it and left it at that. I did not re-insert it! If there is a rule which says that I am obliged to answer every question here, let me know.—Spasiba5 (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, I have not removed anything. I don't have the time for any edit war!—Spasiba5 (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Spaciba5, it is good that you didn't edit war, but you should not be, in the first place, making edits that you are unable to defend. Especially, when the issues have been discussed ahead of time on the talk page, and objections have been raised, it is unreasonable for you to go and make bad edits anyway. Since this is a controversial subject, you need to exercise caution and refrain from making edits that are likely to be reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Winged Blades of Godric, I would like to register my objection to the removal of the "incitement" section. It has been validated by numerous top-quality sources including the NYT, The Atlantic etc. I am afraid your efforts are going to be wasted because I will revert any effort to water down the culpability. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, why not do it section by section in your sandbox? What changes do you intend to make? SerTanmay (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Kautilya3, there's no watering down. I have copied the near-entirety of the first paragraph to the sub-section.
  The last line After the rally, Mishra posted a video threatening police on Twitter is factually incorrect (at least per the citation) in that it impresses upon a reader that Mishra gave some new set of threats and posted its video over Twitter; it was basically the clip of his speech.
  Second paragraph second line has been copied in near-entirety to new subsection. The death-toll needs to be obviously at the end of the article in some section which cumulates all damage; I don't know what it is doing over the incitement section. We need not thrust down a reader's throat that Mishra killed those 42 folks or something to similar effects.
  Accusations by relatives of victims about the ones behind the riot have varied a lot (I spot Mishra, Tahir, Kejriwal and many others) and is hardly highly relevant in pinpointing blame on Kapil. Notwithstanding the fact that the part. blame was cherrypicked to suit the themes of the subsection, it belongs to the article somewhere down the body.
  I have no remote clue about what a line about outsiders (rather than locals) engaging in the violence was doing over that section.
  The police-complaints about Kapil belong to the article but again, over the three sections where we are dealing with all the police and legal stuff, that has manifested around this locus. ∯WBG^converse 12:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Status of Riot

I think riots are over..Situation is under control ..No report of violence since last 2-3 days...why it being mentioned as ongoing? Anandraghuvanshistar (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

(+1) roughly. This struck me yesterday, as well. ∯WBG^converse 13:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead. "Riot;" mortality, property destruction; and issues of cohesion

I have been asked to look at the article. I have had time to examine only the lead. Here are some issues I see.

• The usage of "Riot": Wikipedia serves a global audience. It default is American English. It may be that in South Asian English, "riot" means "religiously targeted violence or bloodshed," and that newspapers in India are using "riot" in this meaning, but this meaning is a little different from the common one in either British English (OED says: "4a A violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd; an outbreak of violent civil disorder or lawlessness.") or American English (Webster's Unabridged says, "an assemblage of three or more persons in a public place for the purpose of accomplishing by concerted action and in a turbulent and disorderly manner a common purpose irrespective of the lawfulness of the purpose.") I'm not suggesting that the title of the page be changed, but the lead should supplement "riot," with something more explicit, such as,

  "violence whose victims were marked out on the basis of their religious affiliation."

  It is a mouthful to be sure, but in any encyclopedia—which is different from a newspaper—it is important for this to be said. It is also pretty clear from reporting in the best third-party international sources, including several articles lead-authored by Jeffrey Gettleman, the Pulitzer-prize-winning South Asia bureau chief of the New York Times, that the violence was not just random violence in which people in disordered haste were attacking the unlucky humans or their property that happen to come their way.
• In any article involving human fatalities (whether occurring from localized violence, such as this, or widespread violence) the nature of the fatalities need to presented upfront and center, not much later in the article. It is clear from the best third-party international reporting that the dead are mostly Muslim and the properties destroyed are overwhelmingly Muslim. That needs to be said with greater precision than is being now.
• After two sentences about the violence, the lead plunges into the larger history and the legislation. That takes away from the cohesion of the narrative. The history should be presented only after sufficient details of the violence have.
• I would suggest that for (the sub-topics) of presenting perspective or value-laden judgments the article cite wherever possible from only the following print newspapers and magazines, and to mix the international and Indian in equal parts:

• the international: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, TIME, Newsweek, The Atlantic, The Irish Times, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist, New Statesman, Spectator, Le Monde, Le Figaro, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Sunday Times (South Africa), Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka), The Sowetan, Asahi Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan Times, Far Eastern Economic Review, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, and The New Zealand Herald.
  • I have avoided choosing newspapers from countries that because of reasons of political or religious ideology might be seen as biased in their reporting.
• and the Indian: Times of India, The Hindu, The Statesman (India), The Telegraph (Kolkata), The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, The Pioneer (India), Deccan Chronicle, The Free Press Journal,
  • I have avoided, National Herald, Wire, Outlook, Caravan, DNA, Firstpost, .. either because they do not appear in print, or because they are not considered neutral in India.)
• I would avoid using Doordarshan, NDTV, India Today, BBC, NBC, CBC, VOA, NPR, Deutsche Welle, ABC (in both meanings), CNN, PBS; for they report minute-to-minute breaking news, which is fine at the time when the news is breaking, but not so reliable a week later. In other words, the "March 1" news citing NDTV is fine. But a general characterization of the violence a week later citing NDTV is not.

• I understand that these are not required by Wikipedia. Please understand that Wikipedia has limited human-power. Editing breaking news is not the typical charge or job description of an encyclopedia editor, nor the overall imperative of an encyclopedia. Without any such rules—especially in the wake of a surfeit of new editors attempting to add their edit of interest—not only will the narrative flip-flop. but human power resources of Wikipedia will also be strained to their limits.
• I will not edit the lead for now, but if I don't see any improvements in a few days, I might make some edits. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Frontline, India Today, Outlook and The Caravan are weekly/monthly news magazines that provide a longer-term view, and I see no reason to exclude them. The Atlantic and The New Yorker, being similar American magazines, fall into the same camp.
• The distinction between "Internet newspapers" and print newspapers is increasingly blurred. The print newspapers also put out instant reports on the Internet, and the Internet newspapers also put out considered stories overnight. The Wire and Scroll.in are increasingly filling a void left by the print newspapers as they sell out to the government and business house advertisers. Being less expensive, they are less dependent on the advertisers.
• Deutsche Welle I find to be an excellent newspaper with a keen interest in South Asia, while avoiding the historical baggage and prejudices of the Commonwealth and American sources. So, with some adjustments, your list can be made to work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I oppose any arbitrary whitelisting/blacklisting of sources for this article. If sources are questionable, they should be proposed for deprecation via WP:RFC at WP:RSN, and restrictions applied only if there is community consensus. Having a double standard for this article is a bad idea. NedFausa (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler is talking about the sources for "presenting perspective or value-laden judgments". For aged topics, we use WP:SCHOLARSHIP for those. For current events, there won't be any scholarly sources. So we have to decide which sources to use for them. The alternative is to let the Wikipedians decide what judgments they want to make and support them by whatever source the can find. For example, I just mentioned somebody doing that with a Republic TV judgment, masquerading as a Newslaundry judgment. That is the road to WP:POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox goals parameter

In reverting my recent edit, SerTanmay invited me to discuss this on Talk page. Our difference of opinion relates to the Infobox, which is titled North East Delhi riots and whose goals parameter reads "Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests." Perhaps I'm missing some dialectical subtlety, but I do not understand how the goal of this riot was to prevent protests. I've read the two references affixed to the parameter, to no avail. To me, it seems the goal of the riots was to protest the Citizenship Amendment Act. NedFausa (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

On Sunday, February 23, the BJP’s Kapil Mishra, who lost his seat in the recent Delhi election, focused his ire on a sit-in by Muslim women in the north of Delhi that was blocking a road. If authorities didn’t clear the road of demonstrators before Trump left India, Mishra warned, his supporters would clear it after the U.S. president’s departure. Loath to wait, the mob set to work within minutes, quickly moving into the adjacent neighborhoods, beating and killing Muslims and looting and burning their property.

Loud and clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Kautilya3, thanks for your reply. I stand corrected, and now see how it's possible to riot in order to prevent or dispel someone else's protest. NedFausa (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why "Pogrom" is removed from infobox ,Kautilya3 ? Is there any consensus on that? It was cited I mean.Edward Zigma (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, why are you flogging this dead horse? Administrator Anachronist has explained not once but twice why he removed pogrom from the Infobox. What more needs to be said? NedFausa (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Heres the non opinion news articles you should check. They are calling it pogroms.First,second, third. There are enough news articles I think. Requesting ,Kautilya3,DBigXray,EL_C to take a look a look in this self consensus going on hereEdward Zigma (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, in case you hadn't noticed, DBigXray has retired. Plus ,Kautilya3 and EL_C are not likely to see your request unless you format their usernames correctly. NedFausa (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya invited me to raise the second "motivation" i.e. religious/ethnic cleansing here. The claimed citation from HuffPo is an op-ed. Illustrating a burnt Quran (along with a burnt mosque) isn't enough to establish the said motive. Crawford88 (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't see any credibility in Atlantic opinion piece by a polemic trying to present only one side of the conflict. Since all we have got are 'claims' we need to give weight yo all sides. Wareon (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Number of deaths in 2020 North East Delhi riots is now 49

Number of deaths in 2020 North East Delhi riots is now 49
https://www.firstpost.com/india/high-cost-of-riots-in-northeast-delhi-list-of-49-people-who-died-during-three-days-of-violence-8108751.html
https://thewire.in/communalism/delhi-riots-identities-deceased-confirmed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkdXe2qU8yo
https://www.thepolisproject.com/the-high-cost-of-targeted-violence-in-northeast-delhi-a-list-of-the-deceased/#.Xl8JKR8zbIV

Please update.--Fathimahazara (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)