Talk:2020 Delhi riots

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

Role of Tahir Hussain

• AAP leader Tahir Hussain leading the riots from his house — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkb76in (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

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.(Redacted) 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 (Ankit Sharma/Tahir Hussain)

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)

• So when we are adding the proposed text? Mohanabhil (talk) 06:21, 12 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)

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)

Noting that per WP:NPOL MLAs are notable. WP:NPOL does not mention councillors and Councillors are not notable as it is not a major post. SerTanmay (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

Bharatiya29, Trojanishere, Mohanabhil and others, kindly refer to the discussion at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME to understand why this is problematic. SerTanmay (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Bharatiya29, please refer to WP:NPOL, which states that MLAs are notable. It does not mention councillors, who are not notable as it is not a major post. SerTanmay (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Bharatiya29 won't be responding as they have been blocked by the WP:Arbitration Committee. This was done privately which means that it must have concerned actions/incidents that should not be made public. As a former member of the Committee I know that this is virtually always to do with off-wiki activity, and I hope most people know that there has been quite a bit of that related to this article. It may not have had anything to do with the WP:Outing that has been taking place, but I suggest that anyone unfamiliar with how we deal with outing read that page as we take it very seriously and block editors who out other editors. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Varun2048, Trojanishere, Mohanabhil, Sanwat, Tayi Arajakate, Sarvatra, DiplomatTesterMan and others, I believe that if Tahir Hussain, Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma can be mentioned in this article, so can the former councillor Ishrat Jahan. Please respond. Can we use her name in this article? Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Ishrat Jahan has been arrested and sent to judicial custody for making a speech and encouraging mob violence. This is a serious offense and very much the topic of the Article. Her arrest has been mentioned in the media too(IndiaToday, Republic and NewIndianExpress). Being a member of a political party, this means she is as important as Kapil Mishra. I find no reason why Ishrat Jahan should not be mentioned.Varun2048 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Varun2048, My reverted edit can be seen here - I had added her name according to what Trojanishere had proposed (which can be seen further above). The 1Revert rule applies here now, so I request you or anyone else to add that back citing the references I had. Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

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

Can this fact be included in a new section or mentioned somewhere in the article. Zikrullah (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is noted in in the article whenever one edits, in Template:Editnotices/Page/2020 Delhi riots, as well as at the top of this talk page in Template:IPA AE. El_C 18:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalism & Hindus

@Fowler&fowler: Pinging you since you seem to be the most involved editor on the article currently. I understand that you are almost directly quoting specific lines from the references, primarily being the Le Monde and NYT articles which are fairly in depth. I fear the resultant paragraph of the quotations are failing to demonstrate the political affiliation of the Hindu perpetrators and equating "Hindus" and "Hindu nationalists" as one and the same, a nuance which would be present if the articles themselves were to be summarized as a whole and not directly quoted from. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not the most involved editor. I appeared here to fix the lead after I was requested. I haven't edited the remaining sections. Not just NYT and LeM, but also Guardian, Wapo, Independent, Economist, ... As they keep changing what might appear primary keeps changing. I don't believe, we are equating "Hindu nationalism" with "Hindus." We don't know the political affiliation of the Hindus, especially in the early phase of the violence; however, after the wall was breached, as it were, gangs bearing the signs and ensigns of Hindu nationalism appeared and began their misdeeds. That we do say. We don't use the adjective "Hindu nationalist" in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: The NYT articles goes into detail on the socio-political conditions and the emergence of Hindu nationalism which it follows with historical incidents concluding at the events in the riots. Le Monde aside from covering details of Hindu nationalist markers among the rioters, directly states:

The situation in New Delhi, the capital of India, deteriorated from hour to hour, Wednesday, February 26, and raised fears of the worst. Demonstrations against a discriminatory nationality law against Muslims have escalated into an inter-community conflict - allegedly orchestrated by Hindu nationalists.

The guardian too directly states:

Violence in India’s capital has left more than 40 dead and hundreds injured after a Hindu nationalist rampage, stoked by the rhetoric of Narendra Modi’s populist government

The Independent quotes a witness and refers to a specific number of people, following it with descriptions of people using Hindu nationalist symbolism. The Economist article is brief and simple refers to have mobs having attacked Muslims. Point to be noted is that, there has been given any other motivation for the riots other than Hindu nationalism in any of the mentioned sources, it should therefore be reasonable to call them Hindu nationalists or if one were to even only use quotations, lay out the details of the usage of Hindu nationalist symbolism as I believe was present in a previous iteration of the article. There no such mention other than the usage of "flags of Hindu nationalism", which appears an attribute of the "Hindu mob" and not as a distinctive feature whereas the specificity of the political inclination of the rioters is very obvious in the sources. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hindu nationalism, I'm not sure. It's a complicated concept, and I doubt that the crowd was well versed in its nuances. Hindu supremacism, very likely. The leader who egged them on belongs to a Hindu nationalist party, and perhaps we can say that, but the BJP is widely-known to espouse Hindutva, so a mention might be redundant. Either way, as I've argued above with other buzz words e.g. "pogrom," etc. It is better to describe in clear and transparent detail what happened, who did what to whom, without cluttering the description, or narration, with blue links that force people to click out of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much sense to distinguish between Hindu nationalists and Hindus any more. The riots happened in the areas where the BJP was strong in the recent assembly election, getting 40-50 percent of the overall vote (and so a much higher percentage of the Hindu vote). While we can't say that all the BJP voters participated in the violence, they certainly bought the goli maro slogans and acquiesced in the violence. So, who are "Hindu nationalists" and who are not? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

New York Times and Washington Post

The American newspapers now routinely use different titles in their online Asia-Pacific editions and the American print editions. Where necessary, I am adding the titles of the print editions, because these are what are found in the libraries. The dates of the two editions also differ, but that is something we expect anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is Asia-Pacific, just online, even in the US; i.e. a print version appears with one title and the online version may have another and might be being updated as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

New lead edits

Fowler&Fowler made an edit on the lead[9] which I pointed out here that he misrepresented the source. He swiftly reverted the improvement and misrepresentation of source is currently sticking.

Source: the violence, which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.

This article: that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mob.

Source only refers the overall violence as "predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", it does not attribute killings of all Muslims in the riots to have carried out by Hindu mobs. Wareon (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wareon, If I am right, you can remove wrong information.Souniel Yadav (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

A number of editors have just edited this talk page and I hope they review my above message. Wareon (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Wareon, it may never happen, so do it yourself.Souniel Yadav (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. Wareon (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please have some citational balance in atleast the first paragraph!

The first paragraph currently has citations from only four places (cites 13 to 17) - Gaurdian, New York Times, The Washington Post and NPR. Can't we have some more sources from Europe, Australia, Africa, China, Middle East, (Antarctica! Mars! Anywhere else!) right there at the top in a more balanced way? Anywhere else than only from US & GB? Like have them, but have others too? Please. DTM (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the lede should have no cites at all.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Anything likely to be challenged should have a citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

As to DiplomatTesterMan's concern, do the other sources disagree? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3, the 3rd paragraph says, "When in response to Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men started gathering to break up the protest, which had been taking place near their neighbourhood, the violence began; initially, it was two-way, with Hindus and Muslims attacking with equal deadliness,[27] and most deaths attributed to gunfire.[28] But by 25 February 2020, the balance had shifted.[27] Rioters wearing helmets and carrying sticks, stones, swords or pistols, and the saffron flags of Hindu nationalism were rushing violently into Muslim neighbourhoods, as the police stood passively by.[29][30] Chants were heard of "Jai Shri Ram" ("Victory to Lord Rama, a major Hindu deity") a slogan to which the ruling party is partial.[16] In the neighbourhood of Shiv Vihar, groups of violent Hindu men attacked Muslim houses and businesses for three days, often firebombing them with cooking gas cylinders and gutting them without any resistance from the police.[31] In some instances, Muslims encountered apprehended threats by returning the violence; on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns.[32]" You may want to add something in the first paragraph (for citational balance), using the same sources. Please do if you can. Thanks!Souniel Yadav (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• One more point is that we are using "third party international sources" but they are not exactly neutral. The Guardian source wholly depends on an anonymous source, an eyewitness and a retired UP (not Delhi) cop. Selection of sources do look poor. Wareon (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We do not second guess RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In theory I would like to say so much here; but it is exhausting as we all know. Practically not likely to go anywhere anytime soon. DTM (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven then why we do have WP:IRS? Sources should be judged on independent basis when they provide conflicting information. Wareon (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information

As per this page the attack was done by hindu people to muslim people and hindus started it. But slingshot that was welded into the building of a school whose owner was a muslim person not mentioned.. Also the house of tahir hussain holds acid packets and lots of stones with petrol bombs founded by police . So the attack was pre planned by which community as per the proofs and the videos available on news/delhi police. This wiki page of delhi riots is clearly showing muslims as a victim however all the proofs of videos and evidences lead to the point that the riots were pre planned by the muslim community. Yes hindus were also involved in it but the starting and planned was from the other community. If you are writing something search for all things and use it dont manipulate information and always play a victim card.Leakyleaks (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Source please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Delhi Police consists of Hindus AND Muslims, as well as Sikhs etc.

When we say the Delhi Police helped so and so from this religion, it makes little sense. Delhi Police consists of Hindus AND Muslims, as well as Sikhs etc. So it is very possible Muslim policemen stood by when Hindus attacked Muslims. Not mentioning Muslim police personnel is misleading. But you ask for a source there is no source that mentions the Muslims police force percentage in the riots (not even our cherished NYT or WP or Gaurdian). So I think a note will suffice. Oh and were they Sunni or Shia... lol. Practically...

Request: I think it is important to put in a note related to the religious composition of the Delhi Police. DTM (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Do we know the ethnic make up of the Police deployed?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead at present is too emotive. That's for sure. Wareon (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

More emotive than the cited sources? More emotive than reality? The source says,

As the mob attacks came once, then twice and then a third time in this north-east Delhi neighbourhood, desperate stallholders repeatedly ran to Gokalpuri and Dayalpur police stations crying out for help. But each time they found the gates locked from the inside. For three days, no help came. ... Since the riots broke out in Delhi at the end of February, the worst religious conflict to engulf the capital in decades, questions have persisted about the role that the Delhi police played in enabling the violence, which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims. Of the 51 people who died, at least three-quarters were Muslim, and many Muslims are still missing.

According to a witness, Arshad kept quiet, so the mob forced down his trousers. On seeing he was circumcised, as is common among Muslims in India, the mob instantly beat him to death. His bloodied body was later found in a gutter, his pants still around his ankles... In the aftermath, even in unaffected areas of Delhi, an exodus of Muslim families began this week, with swathes packing up their bags and returning for good to their home villages, fearing for their safety in the capital.

What sort of defensive nonsense are you guys spouting, nickel and diming sentence fragments, of all people, to me? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

At least 53 people were killed or suffered deadly injuries in violence that persisted for two days.The majority of those killed were Muslims, many shot, hacked or burned to death.

What do you think hacking is? Gently investigating the outermost epidermal layer with a feather? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we disusing the same thing in two threads?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance of above quote farming for just any section.Wareon (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Those are some newspaper sentences that were paraphrased. (Please read the first few pages of The Holocaust. It is pretty detailed as to the motivations and methods of killing. Though this is nothing on that scale, the word "pogrom," has been used in various opinion columns, and there have been demands for its use here, even by seasoned WP hands such as Kaladari. I have avoided using them because the sources are not using them independently, only attributing others doing so.) I have said that it is best to use only high-quality third-party international sources; otherwise, very quickly the page descends into toxic edit warring. The sources used in the lead are all high-quality, third-party, international. Eventually, with time, as longterm views appear, books are published, our language will change. But for now, our hands are tied. We can't change the tone of the language, for the accounts in the sources are not yet distant enough from the subject to settle on a formal characterization or tone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia start sensationalising the FIRST LINE with gory details?

• The first line of this article says:

The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting,[13][14] that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.

• Compare this to the first line of 1984 anti-Sikh riots:

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also known as the 1984 Sikh Massacre, was a series of organised pogroms[8][9][10] against Sikhs in India in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards.

• Compare this to the first line of the The Holocaust:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah,[b] was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

• Compare this to the first line of the 1929 Palestine riots:

The 1929 Arab riots in Palestine, or the Buraq Uprising (Arabic: ثورة البراق‎, Thawrat al-Buraq), also known as the 1929 Massacres, (Hebrew: מאורעות תרפ"ט, Meora'ot Tarpat, lit. Events of 5689 Anno Mundi) refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence.

• I could go on. But the goriness of the first line itself of this article is just plain stupid, sensational and comparatively and historically disturbing. Why can't the first line at least leave out the gory details? Have it in the body.... oh wait no one reads that far right? DTM (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  This isn't about how other articles look like and it is not detailed. The stuff in the lead are heavily reported in sources. They are definitely due weight. If you need to remove that part you should start a RfC. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read wp:lede, its a summery of the article, not a leader.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does not look like you have read what WP:lede says, it says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. You have to read the guidelines before suggesting them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the most important contents of the article what it is not is a "news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.". It should summerise the most important content of the article. I do not see how a list of injuries inflicted is an important part of the article. Shooting is mentioned in one line, slashed only in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You have removed the word "Hindu" just after an editor reverted a disruptive removal of it with a lame excuse disregarding BRD in a heavily sanctioned article. Also, no the current version of the lede is not news style. Those are definitely lead worthy information.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So how much space does it take up in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And other examples of where we do mention casualties East St. Louis riots, 1921 Jaffa riots, Rosewood massacre, Memorial Day massacre of 1937. So I am not sure it is quite that clear cut.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also see Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#New_lead_edits. I am certain sources are not represented correctly in this emotive lead. Wareon (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"emotive" that's a weird spelling of the word "informative". Sorry we don't want an ambiguous lead. Sources definitely support the lead.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead or the very first sentence should be neutral and must be familiar with the general description of the incident across reliable sources. That is not happening here though. Wareon (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lay of the snark.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the preceding discussion, I remain unclear as to what is being proposed. For clarity, I offer this revision of the lead's first sentence with the gory details removed. Please, is that what you have in mind?

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction and rioting that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

If so, let's focus on that revision and await consensus to replace it accordingly in the lead. I must tell you, however, that in my personal opinion it does not adequately summarize the events recounted in our article. NedFausa (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my first post, saying there was bloodshed or death is not the issue. Its the list of injuries that is unneeded.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, the lead's first sentence should read:

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people, most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Is that what you are proposing? NedFausa (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, but bloodshed should be replaced with violence something like "violence and bloodshed".Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to be precise. You say bloodshed should be replaced with violence something like "violence and bloodshed" but that is addition not replacement. So it should read:

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven violence and bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people, most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Correct? NedFausa (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you please explain what violence you have in mind in addition to bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people? NedFausa (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Violence may not lead to bleeding, and bleeding is not always caused by violence. Thus I fell for clarity we need to say there was violence, not just bloodshed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing a subtle difference between American English and British English, but I believe Wikipedia readers of an article titled 2020 Delhi riots will comprehend immediately that bloodshed carries the common meaning listed first in our dictionary: destruction of life, as in war or murder; slaughter. Moreover, property destruction and rioting in this context are implicitly violent. For those reasons, I cannot support your proposed change with the redundant addition of "violence". NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

But not all the victims were killed, there were many many injured.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this then?

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Better? NedFausa (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If you must fine.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sentence is now awkwardly worded. I submit the following as better written.

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others.
  

However, I think you'd have to get behind this wholeheartedly, not grudgingly, if we're going to build consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: See Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#New_lead_edits. "by Hindu mobs" is not supported by the sources and those 3 words should be removed as well. Wareon (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If we say the 2020 Delhi riots were religiously driven, it seems fitting to name the religion of those who rioted. NedFausa (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really, I can (and have in the past) said "if this gets us consensus fine" (its called compromise) So \I can say yes I agree to this if it ends this (and I do).Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Still what matters is if the content is supported by the sources. It is not. Majority of sources don't think this was a religiously driven incident but extension of CAA-related conflicts. Wareon (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline is not very helpful in resolving our discussion of the lead's opening. It recommends: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

In this instance, we might argue that calling the riots religiously driven by Hindu mobs overloads the first sentence, since that aspect is spread out over the entire lead. Indeed, in 7 paragraphs consisting of 700 words, Muslim or Muslims appears 23 times and Hindu or Hindus appears 16 times. (By contrast, Citizenship Amendment Act appears only once.)

By removing both "religiously driven" and "Hindu mobs", however, we're left with a first sentence that does not comport with the rest of the lead.

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others.

That sentence fails to introduce what the rest of the lead unambiguously emphasizes as the principal notability of this article: religious violence. As such, there's no chance we could attract consensus to substitute it. NedFausa (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's lead

I came here because I was requested to by a number of people; my presence was welcome by some administrators.

• Like many other South Asia related pages riven by ideological edit warring, I first fixed only the lead and it was sourced only to

• (1) scholarly books printed by internationally known academic publishers, such as the university presses (Oxford, Cambridge, Columbia, Chicago, Harvard, ...),
• (2) journal articles in internationally known journals, especially review articles of literature,
• (3) Other tertiary sources such as Britannica, or well-worn textbooks used in undergraduate courses around the world, for WP: DUE and
• (4) major third-party international print newspapers with presence in South Asia.

• Other articles where I was approached to do the same are: 2019 Balakot airstrike, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, History of India. Much earlier I did the same for Indus Valley Civilisation, Indian rebellion of 1857, and much earlier India, Partition of India, British Raj, Company rule in India, Pakistan, Kashmir (and all its sub-articles), History of Pakistan, Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, and lord knows many others I can't recall this minute. All these articles had a large number edits made by editors attempting to infuse what I have come to call South-POV (i.e. edits that in some way promote some aspect of related to South Asia in articles).
• WP:Lead fixation has been an old problem on Wikipedia, and this approach of fixing the lead and then fixing the rest of the article is the result of a wide consensus among experienced content editors and administrators who have worked on South Asia related pages, among them are: @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @El C:, @Doug Weller:, @MilborneOne:. The approach goes back to Nichalp, now retired, the administrator and arbitrator who started the major drive for high-quality South Asia related articles on Wikipedia, included many FAs.
• In many instances, after fixing the lead, the rest of the article was fixed (an example is the FA India, which is now Wikipedia's oldest country FA);
• in other instances, many parts of the main body were fixed (examples are Indus Valley Civilisation, History of India (which had gone off my watchlist and an IP (who is now banned) had restored many old edits), Partition of India, Mahatma Gandhi, Kashmir;
• in other instances some parts of the main body were fixed (examples are Subhas Chandra Bose, for which I had to write an entirely new article Death of Subhas Chandra Bose (as that was a big part of its controversial content), Indian rebellion of 1857 (on which Slatersteven has done splendid work in maintaining the article)
• and in some such as 2019 Balakot airstrike, Bhagat Singh, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf and 2020 Delhi riots only the lead was fixed (in the case of Shalwar kameez, and Pilaf a few subsections as well); the rest of the article had just too much to fix. I cannot stress this enough: in all these articles of the last-named category, the lead is not a summary of the article content; it has no connection. It can't: the article main body is in so much of a mess of little details that fixing it would require removal of the content and a rewrite which is more effort than available NPOV editing-power can manage.
• So when an edit is made, as was yesterday, in which outlandishly UNDUE content about Hindu-Muslim unity and interfaith prayer meetings was put in the lead on the basis of its presence in the article main body, major disservice was done, an insult to the truth and ultimately to the victims of violence. Please examine Hannah Ellis-X's Guardian article. It has a few throwaway sentences at the end about some Sikhs who saved some Muslims. Such stories, the exceptions that prove the rule are always available. But the Holocaust page does not have a peep on Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. Please be aware that I have experience both in creating NPOV content and removing POV content on Wikipedia's South Asia related pages. That doesn't mean I'm not required to play by the rules, but that I'm human; I have other commitments, even on Wikipedia. I cannot explain all of the background to all of the people all of the time. Please be aware also that those edits have a long history of appearing in POV promotion on other Wikipedia pages which I have not forgotten, and which I will be trot out if you take me to ANI. Wikipedia has to decide if the relentless promotion of POV is the bigger violation or occasional outbursts in the face of it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Did everyone here just turn a blind eye to interfaith solidarity shown before, during and after the riots?

This heading is oh so important!

• The Delhi police were missing, Hindus and Muslims agree (The Hindu 28 feb)

There are many more of a similar kind (enough to create a nice new section in the article)

• 'We lost a brother': Hindu, Muslim families in Delhi share grief: Interfaith solidarity on display as people mourn the loss of their kin as death toll in Delhi violence rises to 34. (27 February 2020; Al Jazeera)
• Indian archbishop comforts capital’s riot-affected victims (Vatican News)
• Indian diaspora protests against Delhi violence, CAA in London, demands Amit Shah's resignation (India Today)

DTM (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, Why don't you add it?Souniel Yadav (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:DiplomatTesterMan, I completely agree with your comment and I wrote a well-sourced section on this titled "Local opposition to the riots" to discuss Hindu-Muslim unity and the exemplification of the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb during this criris. I also added one sentence to the lede to summarize this section, but it was removed by another user. I will try to do my best to add information from the references you provided later today and will restore a sentence in the lede that summarizes this. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. Why that paragraph was removed? Wareon (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Wareon, I'm not sure why the paragraph was removed (it was done so in this edit). However, I have added a new paragraph, buttressed by multiple sources, based on those that I had previously found, as well as those contributed by User:DiplomatTesterMan. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Degenerating again

@El C, RegentsPark, and Vanamonde93: As invariably happens, once other topics gain the attention of Wikipedians, toxic forms of editing return. Please see the sentence on Hindu-Muslim unity in the lead, sourced to one dozen sources, among others to Hanah Ellis-Peterson's Guardian article, whose main point is anything but Hindu-Muslim unity. I had already once removed that sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not users. If the user is gaming the system report them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

True, I have kept only the comments on content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: the restriction this article is subjected to reads: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours. Has that rule been contravened? (If so, please document in the form of diffs.) El_C 17:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:El_C, I hope you are doing well. On the talk page, in the section above this one, I commented that I intended to add a summary of the local opposition to the riots section to the lede due to the request by User:DiplomatTesterMan above to add information on this topic. Moreover, I mentioned the following in my edit summary: "summarized section per WP:LEDE". What I added to the lede today was different than the last paragraph of the introduction (which was buttressed by references) that User:Fowler&fowler removed days ago, on 13 March 2020, which also summarized the same section. I had written the section in its entirety around 3 March 2020. If you would like me to self-revert the addition of the sentence to the lede if you feel I did anything wrong, kindly let me know and I will do so. As I see it now though, there were no reverts within twenty-four hours made by me on this topic throughout my history of editing this article. I hoe this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Anupam. I don't think there's a need for administrative intervention at this time. Resolution to this content dispute should be attempted through the usual means. El_C 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome User:El_C! I appreciate you taking the time to monitor this article, especially since it is prone to controversy. I trust that you will have a wonderful day ahead of you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: He added a note here. But without any response from me, added a sentence with 12 citations. I request that the previous sentence be restored and a discussion proceed with an input from me. It can't be after a hurried consensus with other after not having edited this talk page since March 13; I on the other hand have been actively taking part. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, I do not see the need to remove the sentence as other editors here, including User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Souniel Yadav, User:Wareon, and myself agreed for the need of more content regarding interfaith solidarity, which is why that sentence was added. If you object to the sentence, you can state that you do so in the section above. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, you state that you "already once removed that sentence" (on 13 March 2020); see Exhibit A. The sentence you removed stated:

The neighbourhood between Jaffrabad and Maujpur, which has a mixed population of Hindus and Muslims, demonstrated unity by guarding one another, barricading the neighbourhood entrance, and preventing outside mobs from entering and disturbing the communal harmony that has existed there.

On the other hand, the sentence I added today states:

Throughout the riots, many Hindus and Muslims, as well as those of other faiths, showed unity by protecting one another and each other's houses of worship, as well as praying in interfaith solidarity with one another.

Do you still feel these are the same sentence? If not, would you like to retract your statement? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Of course it is. Please self-revert, and discuss the sentence here. Superficially changing it, and adding 12 citations doesn't mean a thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What percentage of Ellis-Peterson talks about Hindu Muslim Unity? Want me to give you the word count? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that the two are not the same sentence. The Ellis-Peterson article has six paragraphs devoted to interfaith solidarity and so do a plehtora of other reliable sources. That article states the following:

But for all the tales of discord, dozens of accounts were also given to the Observer of how Sikh and Hindu families helped save their Muslim neighbours, sheltering them in their homes as the violence broke out or helping them escape as the mobs descended.

One Hindu man, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, spoke of how he secretly escorted seven Muslim families to safety in Shiv Vihar.

“I formed a small group involving a few other elderly Hindu neighbours and we managed to thwart the planned attacks on those Muslim households,” he said.

Meanwhile, in the Hindu-majority neighbourhood of Gokalpuri, a Sikh father, Mohinder Singh, 53, and his son Inderjit used their motorcycles to rescue around 70 Muslim men and children, the youngest just nine years old. They had been trapped in the mosque and madrasa, as a mob roamed the streets outside. Singh took the children two at a time on his bike, putting turbans on their heads as a disguise.

“I did not see if they were Muslim or Hindu, I did this for humanity,” said Mohinder. “I had to save them.”

Majinder Singh Sirsa, a Sikh leader in Delhi, said the community had opened up its gurdwaras for shelter, but had been attacked by hardline Hindu and Muslim groups for doing so. “We do feel the pain because we were also targeted 35 years ago,” he said, referring to the anti-Sikh pogroms in Delhi in 1984 where more than 3,000 Sikhs were killed. “Back then, Delhi was burning and humanity died. This week, it has happened once again.”

Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources state and cases of communal harmony amidst the clashes will thus be included in this article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, in general, participants should reflect on the part of WP:ONUS, which reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you El_C. Also, only one source, the Guardian is a third-party international source; the remaining are Indian, and the Vatican news has its own ax to grind. In the Guardian article the very bitter end says a few things about Sikhs saving a few Muslims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C, thus far, the only editor that has opposed the mention of interfaith solidarity among Hindus and Muslims (as well as those of other faiths), is User:Fowler&fowler. Many other editors requested such content in the section above this one. I would like to invite those editors to comment their thoughts on this well cited sentence, if that's okay. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, don't be disingenuous. You complained directly to three administrators about "toxic forms of editing" and in your very next sentence singled out "the bizarre edit made by Anupam." You cannot now pretend, I have kept only the comments on content. You owe Anupam an apology. Additionally, I request that one of those three administrators—@El C, RegentsPark, and Vanamonde93:—immediately WP:REVDEL your personal attack on a fellow editor. NedFausa (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you think this exchange below was:

Comment on content, not users. If the user is gaming the system report them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

True, I have kept only the comments on content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC) ? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC) That meant, "I have removed the non-content portion of the comment." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Fowler&fowler self-corrected, so I consider the matter closed. Revdeletion is usually reserved for more egregious violations, so I don't see the need to apply it in this instance. El_C 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Again (to everyone) if you are not happy with a users conduct take it to wp:ani, not here. Please discus the content.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would actually recommend AE over ANI, since ARBIPA allows usage of this (in my view) superior forum. El_C 18:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Either is more appropriate then here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)