Talk:2020 Delhi riots

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, 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)

Tahir Hussain surrenders in court. Please add this information to relevant parts of the article.

Sources:

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-riot-tahir-hussain-surrender-ib-staffer-death-sad-1652702-2020-03-05
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/aap-leader-tahir-hussain-accused-in-delhi-violence-appears-in-court-to-surrender-2190386 Aswin8 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 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)

1RR now in effect

Please be mindful, everyone. El_C 14:39, 29 February 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 [[9]]

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,[10] and areas outside NE Delhi were affected by riots as they also had to go through same aftermath such as school shutdowns.[11][12] 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 to 2020 Delhi riots - not aware that Requested Move discussion is going on. Jethwarp (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Berlindian (talk) 13:33, 4 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)

User:Ryk72 You must first get actual copy of CAA. It is not written all religion except Islam rather listed specific minority communities in those countries only. We need to shred off our personal opinion as a true journalist. Go through the Amendment section DBigFacts (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not quite able to parse this. To what comment of mine is it a reply or rebuttal? I have read the CAA, and it does indeed not say "all religion except Islam", but has "Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian", and only from "Pakistan, Afghanistan & Bangladesh". I say that our article text should follow that. I don't see that aligning our text to the source is injecting personal opinion; if that is what is being implied. I am not now a journalist; but Wikipedia is not a journal. - Ryk72 ^talk 10:21, 5 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)

• Just removed a section made up of laundry list of non-notable UK politicians. The entry seemed cherry picked too. Azuredivay (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Edward Zigma, please note. SerTanmay (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  The violence in Delhi was discussed for whooping half a day in the house of commons. Every parliamentarian condemned this. If someone supported it then it should be added too. But no one supported it. Please re add it.Azuredivay Edward Zigma (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Still "trivial" as described in the original edit. They discuss many things and we don't have to cover them all but instead mention the view by Boris Johnson if there is any, otherwise forget this. Mohanabhil (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Then my proposed version is that mention that Delhi violence attracted heavy criticism for Indian government, many MPs criticised it and mention the comment made by Whittome coz her responsed attracted many article. Even Huffington post reported focussing her comment.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not Boris Johnson if you could add statement by Erdogan? We don't need to do cherrypicking here. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:15, 6 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",[13], 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)

Seems biased reporting because foreign media had only reported about activity of hindu national mobs and suffering of muslims while completely ignored activity of muslim mob and suffering of Hindus. Also The writers are in some cases are Indian muslims who have biased against Hindu national and ignore the wrong doing of muslims. Dev0745 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME

As per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME, I have removed the names of the following:

• Alleged shooter Shahrukh
• Tahir Hussain
• Activists Sabu Ansari, Khalid Saifi and former City Councillor Ishrat Jahan
• radio jockey Sayema Rahman

If there is sufficient justification and proof to keep these names in the article, I am willing to revert my changes. Have still not followed Wikipedia is not a newspaper to the book as I have preserved the incidents but simply removed the names, since the incidents seem to have achieved consensus to keep. SerTanmay (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• "Shahrukh" seems to be a random person. So WP:BLPCRIME applies.
• Tahir Hussain is a city councillor. So a public person.
• The activists and Ishrat Jahan also seem to have had leadership roles in the protests (and Jahan former city councillor). So they are vaguely public persons.
• I don't know about Sayema Rahman. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, city councillors are hardly notable. MLAs, yes, but councillors, no. SerTanmay (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read the policy carefully. It doesn't mention the word "notable". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, Kautilya3, Then the name of Kapil Mishra and even BJP should be removed! Why should only muslim names be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, kindly revert this edit of yours unitl we achieve consensus on the same. Shahrukh is not notable by any standards. Regarding your query on Kapil mishra, it has been made clear dozens of times on this talk page that kapil Mishra is in fact notable and his speech triggered the riots. SerTanmay (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, Kapil Mishra is neither a councillor nor MLA and he joined the BJP just recently!—Spasiba5 (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, have you even read his Wikipedia article? He was previously an MLA. SerTanmay (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, I did read it before posting here. He was an AAP MLA. Congress leader Ishrat Jahan arrested for allegedly inciting violence during Delhi riots. Waris Pathan incited Muslims to turn violent by saying that 15 crore Muslims are more than a match for 100 crore Hindus. Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid is also culpable.

Others:- (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

These unreliable sources contain BLP violations — do not add these again, Spasiba5. El_C 22:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Kautilya3, agreed that the word "notable" is not mentioned. However, I would like you to refer to WP:BLPCRIME, which states that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." One might argue that these people only appeared in the news after these accusations / allegations. SerTanmay (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, let us first establish whether we must add or remove Tahir Hussain, Sabu Ansari, Khalid Saifi and Ishrat Jahan before moving on to other cases. Also, please support whatever you are trying to say with WP:RS. SerTanmay (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, When searching online with the words, "incite" or "instigate" only Ishrat Jahan's name comes up, not Kapil Mishra's!—Spasiba5 (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Web results- Delhi violence outcome of \'instigation\' by opposition leaders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, again, I don't see how adding their names, while they still haven't been convicted, not violate WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. Also, please remember that Wikipedia is not Google. SerTanmay (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, Kautilya3, Then the name of Kapil Mishra and even BJP should be removed! Why should only muslim names be removed?—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, I am not asking to add names, I'm only asking to remove Kapil Mishra's name!—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

..... and if the BJP is mentioned as his present party, it should also say that he formerly belonged to the AAP.—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, as explained to you before, Kapil Mishra was himself pretty well-known before this incident (being an MLA and all) and his speech clearly triggered the riots, which lets us not apply WP:BLPCRIME to him (since he is important to the narrative). However, the others are not YET important to the narrative, considering how they were almost nobody before the riots - they become important to the narrative only when convicted of the allegations, or if significant proof is found against them (in the court, not by the media). SerTanmay (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, even Kapil Mishra has not been convicted which is why I am asking that his name should also be removed!—Spasiba5 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reinstating comment that was accidentally removed due to edit conflict. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, I have already addressed this. His involvement is important to the narrative. Please don't take this discussion in circles. SerTanmay (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay The removal is clearly one sided. I agree with Spasiba5. We had previously discussed this issue and arrived at consensus that everything must go according the court proceedings and not allegations. If we go by allegations, then Tahir Hussain is also being accused of Murder. But he doesn't appear in the article. Ishrat Jahan and others have been arrested on court orders. What more do you need? Regarding being notable person, I say this- Colonel Purohit was not a notable figure before Samjhauta blasts. As he was held responsible for the blasts he became 'a notable figure'. So the names you omitted have become 'notable' in this incident as they courts have ordered their arrest. Therefore the mentioning of Ishrat Jahan and co is important as court as deemed it fit enough to order their arrests. Kautilya3 we had discussed this earlier. Why this sudden change?Trojanishere (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Trojanishere, kindly read WP:BLPCRIME and refer to the above discussion on how we must refrain unless "a conviction has been secured" - which it has not. i am not saying that we should not add them, I am only of the opinion that we wait for the facts to settle until it is more than just a court order but solid proof is made available of their involvement. SerTanmay (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay your edits are clearly partisian WP:NPOV.Conviction takes years in India. Should we wait until then or we should update the court proceedings time to time? You are saying that we should wait for conviction.Then why not wait for the conviction of Kapil Mishra, Anuraj Thakur and Pravesh Verma. How can you directly implicate them? While Tahir Hussain who has been recorded while coordinating attacks and Mohammad Shahrukh who has been videographed while doing the act directly, they are not mentioned in the article. If you are removing Tahir & Shahrukh (directly involved) then you sholud also remove Kapil and Thakur. Anyway the earlier version named Tahir & Shahrukh. Further regarding Israt Jahan it was mentioned that she was arrested not convicted. You should have waited for a consensus on the TalkPage before making the edit. I therefore invite DBigXray,Bharatiya29, Varun2048 to chip in. Trojanishere (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Trojanishere, I have made the edit citing my reasons, and I have reiterated them multiple times in this very thread. If you manage to convince me of my mistake instead of blindly accusing me then maybe will we will achieve a fruitful discussion. SerTanmay (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Trojanishere SerTanmay , I believe, both the names of Kapil Mishra and Tahir should be involved in the article. But I do not believe Shahrukh should be in the article, as of now,as he is not central to the overall plot of Delhi Riots. He is a person who is accused of threatening the police with a gun. Until he gets convicted by a sessions court, it is not worthy to mention him. However, this is not same with Tahir Hussain. He is central to the plot. He is accused of many things, such as being involved in the killing of IB officer Ankit Sharma and other Hindu people. His supporters defend him, saying he was surrounded by a murderous mob. Whatever the truth is, the thing is Tahir Hussain is central to the incidents that took place during that day and it is unfair to ignore him. I propose adding his name, what he is accused of and how his supporters defend his actions. Varun2048 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Varun2048

Varu2048 That's what I am trying to say. SerTanmay Not including Tahir but including Pravesh Verma just because he said something provocative is unfair. Waris Pathan had also said very provocative things in a rally. Should we include him too? Both Pathan & Anurag Thakur made their comments before commencement of the violence. Why leave one and imply the other? We cannot go on doing that just because of something that they uttered at a political rally. I cannot manage to convince you SerTanmay if you are hell-bent to not listen to my arguments. I think the implication of Tahir and Ishrat Jahan's arrest form the core of the article. Again you did not clarify whether we should wait for several years before the courts convict them. Trojanishere (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Varun2048, Trojanishere, have restored Tahir Hussain's name for the alleged murder of the IB employee Ankit Sharma. SerTanmay (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay He has been arrested by Delhi police in relation to Ankit Sharma's murder. Please add that. You have just stated than an FIR has been registered. And what about mentioning his alleged role in burning of homes and throwing petrol bombs. Further, I think Ishrat Jahan should also be added. Can you explain me why you are not adding Ishrat's name.Trojanishere (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Trojanishere, have updated the info to reflect Hussain's arrest. I haven't added the rest because of violating WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. If you can provide sufficient WP:RS and explain how they are important to the narrative, please do. Do note that the arrests have been mentioned but not their names. SerTanmay (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Archive settings

Since the 24-hour check doesn't seem to be working properly, have now kept the max size of Talk page to 150,000 bytes. Only old threads should be affected by this, and the discussion can still continue (since the thread is only archived, not removed). SerTanmay (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I changed it over from ClueBot to MiszaBot so hopefully that will fix the auto archive. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, thanks! SerTanmay (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

There's not much I can do

@El C, Vanamonde93, and Kautilya3: There is not much I can do. Editors making edits that favor the Hindutva perspective have reverted all my edits, not in one revert, but cleverly disguised in two dozen small edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I noticed. Can't their changes be reverted? SerTanmay (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, your edits removed a chunk of content from the sources, especially the specific quotes attached to them. Can you please explain why? SerTanmay (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@SerTanmay: You have provided misleading edit summary when it comes to the lead. Lead was correctly restored back to stable consensus version before you restored problematic lead back. Wareon (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Wareon, kindly point me to where consensus was achieved for the same. SerTanmay (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Just saw you combined both old and new edits. Though I don't agree at all with over bragging of muslim related losses on very first paragraph. It needs to be toned down. Wareon (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with Fowler&fowler, there is no authenticity. Whole article is now filled with hindutva like propaganda spaced.requesting user @El C, Vanamonde93, and Kautilya3: to take strong action. What happened has happened, and it should be shown. But now Spasiba5 and many others have filled and turn it into a propaganda article. And I am stongly against it. Edward Zigma (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5 has been banned from the IPA topic area. If there are other editors who are violating policy, please feel free to list them at Arbitration enforcement so that their prospective violations could be further investigated and, if necessary, corrective action taken. El_C 17:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, as per MOS:LEADREL and MOS:LEAD, the mentioned incidents are not necessary in lead. Kindly self-revert them.

Additionally, your other edits are gently pushing the WP:POV towards a narrative for which consensus has not been achieved yet. Kindly explain your actions. SerTanmay (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, this edit, you are breaking WP:1RR. Kindly revert your edits. SerTanmay (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm horribly busy in RL and cannot do anything substantive for a few days at least. It may be worth considering requesting EC protection for this article, if you can show that most edits by newbies are not policy-compliant. Those editors that have EC status can still be a problem, but they have enough of a track record that individual sanctions are effective in dealing with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the article written by foreign media are too biased while they mention about Hindu mob but totally ignore what muslim mob have done. So it is necessary to add what Indian media have written. Dev0745 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C please note the above breaking of WP:1RR by Dev0745. SerTanmay (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the article is already EC protected. El_C 18:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: My bad, missed that somehow. Thanks. It was necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, I'm not seeing 1RR having been violated in this instance. You need to show that each revert is, indeed, a revert, by providing a link to the respective previous version that has been reverted to, also. El_C 18:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

El C, [14] and [15] effectively revert [16]. SerTanmay (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, SerTanmay, I'm still not seeing it. Maybe it would be best if you were to take the prospective violation to AN3 or AE so that other admins could evaluate it. El_C 19:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, I'll do that if he escalates the situation. Dev0745, please revert the given edits until we reach a proper consensus. Thank you. SerTanmay (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit have already reverted by admin.Dev0745 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, please revert [17] until we achieve some consensus on whether it is required. Thank you. SerTanmay (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Slight change of proposal about sources above

The problem I see with domestic (Indian) sources is that, like all domestic sources anywhere in the world, there is a veritable echo chamber of them; it is impossible to decide which is saying what because of actual reporting or of mirroring of others; it is impossible to decide which is kowtowing to government pressure and which is not. Relentless focus on who threw the first stone, who killed the policeman, what was the religion of the man who was brandishing a gun, why was his house locked even though his relatives (hint, hint, all wearing skull caps) are standing outside, and so forth makes it not only unreliable but useless for any issue of perspective or encyclopedic notability. I am therefore suggesting that domestic (Indian) sources not be used as far as is possible in the lead. In other words, as an example, if the major third-party foreign newspapers, all of which have a presence in Delhi, such as the ones I have mentioned in a section above, are not looking for a "cause," such as a policeman being killed first by the "protesters," who by implication are Muslim, then we cannot add it in the lead, no matter how the Indian sources are lining up on this issue. The logic is that we ourselves cannot interpret the seemingly contradictory items of news coming out of India, but these correspondents of the foreign newspapers can, and their reporting is good enough; they are obviously aware of the domestic reporting. If we do not stick to foreign sources for the lead, the lead will be flipflopping continuously as many of you have already seen. Sounding out @El C: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That is why in my edits I have used NYTimes, Washington Post, Independent, Le Monde, Economist, and will diversify the sources even more. The point is that together their collective perspective is the best we have. They can't collectively be anti-India, anti-national, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, or anti-whatever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BALANCED advises: …when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. I find it offensive on its face to propose that only non-Indian sources are reputable in reporting this story. That would serve to bolster the already rampant accusations on social media (and on this Talk page) that Wikipedia is promoting anti-Hindu sentiment. Please, let's not go this route. NedFausa (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I took pains to say that it was not "Indian,' but "domestic," that is a problem, and that it is a problem anywhere in the world. In terms of resolution and semantic levels, domestic news items are high-resolution and low-level. The foreign sources will usually have the detachment for greater perspective, anywhere in the world. They will often be low-resolution and high-level. For essential high-resolution news, such as the numbers of the dead increasing to 53, Indian sources are fine. But for a more general statement such as this being a case of violence in which Muslims were targeted is a high-level semantic judgment. Foreign sources will be better, anywhere in the world. I don't typically edit such pages. There is not much I can do with what social media thinks. I have no interest in it. Wikipedia's imperative is independent of the POVs of people, media or nations, again, anywhere in the world. It is an equal opportunity ideological-offender. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

At 21:16, you described the problem I see with domestic (Indian) sources. … I am therefore suggesting that domestic (Indian) sources not be used as far as is possible in the lead. Now, at 22:23, you declare I took pains to say that it was not "Indian,' but "domestic"… Please make up your mind. If domestic ≠ Indian, what does domestic mean? NedFausa (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made up my mind in another section upstairs where I described the acceptable list of sources. I am narrowing them down further, to third-party international sources. "Domestic" vs "International" is a general description; in America "domestic" would mean American whereas in India it would mean Indian. "Third-party" is context-dependent, a reference to sources which will not have a conflict of interest with the story. In this instance as I've explained above and below, it is not just "Indian," but also South Asian (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepali newspapers), Islamic (Al-Jazeera, Saudi Arabian, Turkish, Malaysian, Indonesian, newspapers), ideologically-aligned (Russian and Chinese newspapers) would be ruled out. However, US, Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian, British, Continental, Israeli, South African, Japanese, Australian, New Zealand newspapers would be fine, especially reliable ones that have a presence in India, i.e. a reporter, even better a bureau. Surely, no one can say they are all biased in reporting this story. If you don't make such a restriction, ideological or sectarian battles that Wikipedia is not in a position to judge—nor for the most part able to monitor, much less manage, without serious reallocation of resources—get fought on its pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• To say that you have used foreign sources seems a bit of over-presentation if you want to say that they have more credibility. In your edits you highlighted aspects of one side over other. Why you used a source from 27 February when a source from 2 March from [   https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/03/02/world/asia/ap-as-india-violence.html  New York Times] is much better? There are real POV problems in the lead at this moment. Mohanabhil (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's an AP story, without a byline, carried by NYT; in other words, it is regular newsfeed from an agency. Regardless, you are right, the AP story could certainly have been used to update the mortality figures to 46, but it is too late now, as the mortality has gone up. I typically don't like anonymous news agency stories, but in the absence of signed stories, they're OK. I'm not saying my edits are infallible, only that third-party reporting, ie. in this instance: not-Indian, not South Asian, not Islamic (Al Jazeera etc), not ideologically compromised (Russian or Chinese) are best for this sort of charged and disputed story. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• An AP story published and endorsed by NY Times. I also think we need to summarize at least the first most paragraph of the lead per this source because it is at least far more neutral than this article. Consider taking a look at this recent BBC source too which say "Riots broke out in north-east Delhi after clashes between protesters for and against a controversial citizenship law turned violent." Sounds more neutral to me compared to our article right now. Azuredivay (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time with nonsense. AP is owned by hundreds of (American) newspapers, including the NY Times. They don't endorse anything, only pay for each story they carry. The AP has a vast network of reporters, but also informers, more than any newspaper is capable of having; its stories are vetted, its writing stylebook is famous, but anonymous AP, or Reuters stories, do not carry the imprimatur of the NY Times that signed NY Times stories do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you seriously think the New York Times has an editorial staff that is checking the details of all these AP stories? It will go bankrupt sooner than its detracters are predicting for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, my sincere apologies for restoring the troublesome parts of the lead, I blindly merged your version with the previous one. Thank you for clarifying in your edit summaries. SerTanmay (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, please use the information AS PER THE SOURCE. In [18], you added the line 'Anti-CAA protestors' (stating in your edit summary "as per source") while the source clearly says "Protesters wearing masks and waving swords clash with police." Even the grammatical changes you made were not required. Kindly self-revert this. Your POV pushing will not do here. SerTanmay (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Although protesters were anti CAA protesters but sources don't mention it so I removed anti-CAA... thanks Dev0745 (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, this edit [19] is also not required as per the discussion above and at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#The_lead._"Riot;"_mortality,_property_destruction;_and_issues_of_cohesion. Kindly revert until further consensus (or significant WP:RS) is achieved. SerTanmay (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Admin had edited the lead section but I find it insufficient as it only mention riots in 24 February but ignore riots of 23 February on the day which initial riot started. Also India Today news articles are cited as sources. I just expanded it to present full picture. I will talk with admin Fowler&fowler, for now I am removing it. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Fowler&fowler with this. The article has been significantly changed in disguise of several small edits. I really hope articles like (Redacted) from OpIndia didn't influence them. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Dev0745: Fowler is not an administrator. You need to focus on the dispute in the hand which mainly concerns the first paragraph of the lead which is non-neutral. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see lead section is non-neutral. But According to wikipedia policy , third party sources are given priority. In this case foreign media are third party who have selective reporting.Dev0745 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mob

This word is used a lot, for example 7 times in the lead. I wonder if it's overused and always in line with sources. I checked one source which said "rioters" (and also "mob"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Wareon (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Exclusion of the names of Tahir Hussain, Ishrat Jahan and others from the article.

Every mention of AAP Councillors Tahir Hussain and Ishrat Jahan has been edited out. This is despite the fact that they have been arrested by the police and ample video proof available against them. In Ishrat's case, the High Court has even ordered her arrest. Yet this has been removed.

The Chief Justice of India has specifically asked for the transcript of a speech made by Harsh Mander at an anti-CAA rally. Yet no mention of this.

I agree that name of Kapil Mishra should be used but if we include the name of Anurag Thakur then why not include the name of Waris Pathan who had also made very provocative comments at an anti-CAA gathering. Further in her tweets, RJ Sayma Ahmad urged the people to mobilise against pro-CAA protestors. The High Court has asked Delhi Police to file an FIR against her. This [art was also edited out.

Bharatiya29, Varu2048 please opine. Trojanishere (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Trojanishere and others, kindly continue this discussion at the existing thread of Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME if you hope to achieve consensus. Thank you. SerTanmay (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Protest: I lodge my protest here. Why should only Muslim names be removed from the article? Remove the names of Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma also.2Priti (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The introduction says, "......most of whom were Muslim.[10][11] Muslims were described as having been targeted by the rioters.[12] The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters.[13] The Indian government has characterised the violence to be spontaneous. Many Muslims have since begun to leave these neighbourhoods." That is wrong. Hindus were also targeted.2Priti (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

FIRs have been lodged against Ishrat Jahan for incitement and weapons were found in the house of Tahir Hussain.2Priti (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Please start citing reliable sources for your claims, 2Priti, or further such comment will be summarily removed. This is not a discussion forum. El_C 18:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C People are raising questions on the neutrality of the article, and not discussing the topic in general. Hence in no way whatsoever does WP:NOTFORUM come into picture here. You are right about the need of reliable sources to support the claims, but I think what Trojanishere and 2Priti are trying to highlight here is the constant efforts by certain editors to prevent the neutralization of this article, a concern I share with them. Bharatiya29 19:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Without attributing concerns to reliable sources that is what it amounts to. This is not a venue for polemics, even when comments tentatively speak about neutrality or lack thereof, and so on. We've been far too tolerant of high volume of disruptive and tendentious editing on this talk page. No more. El_C 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That is correct. Simply questioning neutrality without offering reliable sources is no better than a forum comment. This must stop. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey El_C and Anachronist, I am addiing few references here and you please explain me if the court feels Ishrat Jahan's arrest in the connection of instigating violence after seeing the proofs then doesn't it merit even a mention in the wikipedia page.

1. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/feb/28/delhi-riots-court-rejects-bail-plea-of-arrested-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-ishrat-jahan-2109944.amp

2. https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/ishrat-jahan-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-arrested-for-inciting-violence-during-delhi-riots-593664

3. https://www.headlinestoday.in/top-news/ishrat-jahan-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-arrested-for-inciting-violence-during-delhi-riots-158581378.html

4. https://www.republicworld.com/amp/india-news/law-and-order/congress-leader-ishrat-jahan-arrested-for-for-inciting-violence-during.html

We have court's ruling in this matter still you guys don't want to mention her. I am only implying her alleded role like the alleged role of Anuraj Thakur etc.We need to mention that she has been arrested. Thats all. I think she definitly merits a mention. Trojanishere (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

I never made any comment regarding this individual. Please don't attribute to me what I am otherwise uninvolved with. El_C 20:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Trojanishere: I do think that those names should be included. Can you write a proposed paragraph for the lead now? That will make easier for others to identify the text in question. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Mohanabhil, Trojanishere, there is already a neutral version of the same in my sandbox. I would, however, implore you and others to either move this discussion to Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME, while referring to the detailed discussion at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Role_of_Tahir_Hussain. SerTanmay (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You have my approval too to add this text on main article. I don't see a problem here. When you are adding it? Mohanabhil (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Mohanabhil, Bharatiya29 I propose the following short and precise text be added and previous refences be used as citations:

"Ishrat Jahan, a Congress party's councillor has been arrested by Delhi Police on the orders of a sessions court. She has been accused of murder, rioting, giving provocative speeches during communal tensions and inciting a mob for an attack." Trojanishere (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Involvement of any politician, especially those who are occuipying a government post like MLA or councillor, is surely notable enough to be described in the article. If one has reliable sources to support his/her edits, like you do, I fail to see how someone could have any problem with that. Such unnecessary bottlenecks are exactly the reason behind the mess that this article and its talk page have become. Bharatiya29 14:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Biased lead

Lead section seems baised. It mention Hindu mob with stick and weapons but ignore the muslim mob who had also carried petrol bombs and weapons. I think foregion media is baised in covering about the incident while they have mentioned about Hindu national mob but ignored muslim mob. Lead should be neutral with mention of both Hindu and Muslim mob.

References

Dev0745 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What possible reason would foreign media have to be biased, in either direction? If anything, they represent detachment from the topic, because they are uninvolved. Please clarify. El_C 19:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems biased reporting because foreign media had only reported about activity of hindu national mobs and suffering of muslims while completely ignored activity of muslim mob and suffering of Hindus. Also The writers are in some cases are Indian muslims who have biased against Hindu national and ignore the wrong doing of muslims. Dev0745 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument about the orientation of the writers comes across as original research — i.e. it isn't attributed to any reliable sources making that argument. You cannot basically make stuff up. Wikipedia does not work that way. We go by what reliable sources say, and detachment from the matter at hand is an advantage, not a disadvantage. El_C 19:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, It is selective reporting.Dev0745 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead section inadequate as It don't mention clash between Pro CAA and anti CAA protesters when anti CAA protesters hurled stones on Pro CAA protesters on 23 February. Anti CAA protesters wearing helmets and carrying sword clash with police. These things are mentioned in India Today news articles. These things should be included in lead section. Now lead section seems biased as it only mention Hindu national carrying weapons on 24 February. It not mention clash of Anti CAA protesters wearing helmets, carrying sword and stone throwing at Police.

References

Dev0745 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, kindly refer to Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#The_lead._"Riot;"_mortality,_property_destruction;_and_issues_of_cohesion. Thank you. SerTanmay (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"This article by Hindustan Times". can be of help too. Mohanabhil (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Still baised as lead section don't represent whole picture of incidents. riots started on 23 February as opposed to what lead section say.Dev0745 (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are wrong, but you should propose your text with sources. Mohanabhil (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy third party sources, here foreign media, get priority but all foreign media have selective reporting..Dev0745 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey SerTanmay and Dev0745 the lead is definitely biased. None of the cited sources has any mention of Hindus being targeted. Muslims were described as having been targeted by the rioters. The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters. The Indian government swiftly characterized the violence to be spontaneous. Many Muslims have since begun to leave these neighbourhoods. Moreover, many of the citations (especially of NYT) seem to be a part of the editorial, not news reporting. So the newspaper's editorial policy definitely affects these. So many of the observations are just opinions, not facts. Further, you cannot say that they are independent just because they are from a third country. Many of them are prejudiced against India.One of the NYT citations used blames Modi for going ahead with Supreme Court's order in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. How can that be neutral? They have criticized art 370 abrogation so vehemently but haven't included even one view from the other side. Why? I think the lead should only consist of facts as it was earlier. These can be incorporated into the body of the article. Trojanishere (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

SerTanmay, Dev0745 Further all the articles have skirted around the fact of anti-CAA mob first pelting the stones at pro-CAA supporters. The death of a cop, attempted lynchings of DCP and an ACP is also not mentioned. There is an agenda. Trojanishere (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

I know but these things are not reported by any foreign media, so not included in lead section. Dev0745 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Redundant comments

@Dev0745: in the past 2½ hours, you added what is essentially the same comment six times to this Talk page. In multiple instances, you repeated your comment verbatim. Diffs are, in order posted: one and two (verbatim), three, four and five (verbatim), and six. I do not question your good faith, but as the behavioral guideline on disruptive editing cautions us: The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. I respectfully request that you stop repeatedly posting the same comment. Trust me, you have made your point. NedFausa (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @NedFausa:. It is very frustrating for an editor whose edits have been unravelled in such fashion. It is difficult to assume good faith endlessly either, for such unravelling begins to have the hallmarks of piecemeal reverting, and of 1RR-avoidance. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This was happening as I was commenting on commentbox but It was not appearing on it. So I copy pasted by comments three times. Then I realised the problem. This is probably due to I am editing on mobile phone. ThanksDev0745 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Overstruck edit history

Time and date stamps for the overwhelming majority of edits have suddenly been struckover at this Talk page's revision history, making it impossible to compare edits with those preceding and following. Was it something I said? NedFausa (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been instances of WP:OUTING on the part of drive-by complainers, and sometimes many edits go by before it is realized, and then every revision that contains the outing text needs to be suppressed, including revisions by innocent editors just because the page happens to include the offending text. That is why. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mobs from outside called

Mobs from outside Delhi was called to participate in riots. Source: https://www.news18.com/news/india/class-warfare-over-2000-outsiders-occupied-two-schools-to-carry-out-delhi-riots-says-state-minorities-panel-report-2525473.html Zikrullah (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Good find. This deserves a mention on lead. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Slow spaced disruptive editing on page by some user.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is to point out that Dev0745 despite getting encouraged many times to have a discussion is changing article spaced into the whole article, tryimg to push a particular POV. Kautilya3 El_C Edward Zigma (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think article seems anti-hindu bias. While There are many place where there is mentioned of hindu symbols or slogans but don't mention muslim slogan where it should be mention. Dev0745 (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

no. You are taking it like one on one. There is already a discussion on this about that and its reliability. Stop doing spaced vandilation. The purpose is to shaow what happened. Not to make it seem what happened. Edward Zigma (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I had edited according to what mentioned in news article, clash of mob by sreaming religious slogan. So according to you these things not happened? If it is not required, then why mention Screaming of hindu religious slogan or wearing Hindu symbols while torching mosque and properties. Dev0745 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

let me again clear that to you which I have mentioned hundred times that The reason to mention is that it is mentioned by heavy number of international and national media. If the other one is same then no doubt it will be added too. But just on one measly source which is unreliable, you cannot make both equal. If you have prominent portals which have mentioned it, then do add it in talk section. But the problem is about slow spaced editing. Stop doing this if you don't want to get blocked. It's again a request.Edward Zigma (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma Funny that you are the one excusing others of non-neutrality after this brazenly biased revert of yours. The source mentions both slogans, but you are trying to cherry-pick only one of them. This is a serious violation of WP:NPOV and I will suggest you to abstain from such bias in the future. (Not reverting your edit because of the 1RR rule.) Bharatiya29 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong!!! The one slogan is picked by international and national news portals alike. If you have mentions of another from more than one reliable sources from intenrational and national media then no one will have any problem. The mention of one meant that it was heavily reported coz it was generalised, whilr the other one might be localised but you cannot say it was raised in every instanCe. If you have more than one reliable source which definitely confirms this, then I will add it myself. The riots as per reports by far says that they were "Mostly"(not everywhere) one sided with police action in doubt. If they were equal you dont have to force equality. If they are not, then you don't have to force the equality, you have to just add what happened. Lack of reliable sources in other instance clear proves that it might be localised. If you have any proof that it was widely raised, then please cite them. Localised intances won't make much difference. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, provide reliable sources to back your claim otherwise they are useless on a platform like Wikipedia. Let me do the same to get the ball rolling - India Today, Newslaundry, The Wire, Scroll, Swarajya (the link to which is on the blacklist for reasons completely beyond my comprehension). The last three sources are generally linked to diagonally opposite ends of the political spectrum, so that should make it clear how widely accepted is the fact that the Allah-u-Akbar slogan was used during the riots. Bharatiya29 16:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The international articles have proved that what had happend. I am citing some of them.

• Citation 1
• Citation 2
• Citation 3

I have cited 2 international citations and one India by far in this. If you have the sources with on the same par with this or even close to this please cite them. We will compare both. If both are equal with same context and compare their reliability. This is not POV pushing. Brothers and sisters need to understand that what has happened has to be shown. What has happened is (heart wrenching) in my POV. But I cannot add it. We have to be totally unbiased in each and every word. I was very much like you all but I learn the hard way that we have a responsibility. This is not a social media or a blog. Please it's a request. What Indian media has shown(news channels) is mostly a POV pushing trying to fame and defame in their agendas. We cannot allow it on wikipedia. I really hope all of will understand our responsibility for free and fair knowledge. Try to clear your mind, understand the responsibility and try to write whatever edits you make. Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

We have RS supporting this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma I am not even disputing the mention of the Jai Shri Ram slogan. Do you have any reliable source which explicitly states that Allah-u-Akbar slogans were NOT raised during the riots? If not, continuing this discussion is really meaningless and you should simple revert your edit. Bharatiya29 17:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how this work. I have cited highly reliable articles. Do you have articles which are on same par with this. Which state how other slogans were raised instead of mentioning one two selective incident. Cite the articles. Editors will compare it. But please stop editing POVs, this is not Indian media where no word has any accountability. This is wikipedia and we have to maintain its decorum now.Edward Zigma (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Role of external gangs and ammunition

Times of India and Hindustan times had both mentioned articles regarding the alleged involvement of external gangs and also that 500 rounds of ammunition had been used in the duration of this attack. Would these matters can also be included in this article? I am aware that a previous user had also mentioned these links, but his request had been rejected for POV pushing. Aswin8 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The TOI article is clearly a reliable source. I wonder how can one associate it with POV pushing. Can you provide a link to the exact edit that was made, so that it can be reconsidered by the community? Bharatiya29 15:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a reverted edit, but it was mentioned by User:Spasiba5 mid-way through the talk page section regarding "Role of Tahir Hussain". A thing to be noted however is that user had given biased comments regarding his views there, that's why it was disregarded then. Aswin8 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to ping Spasiba5 as they have been topic banned and are unable to respond. El_C 17:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)