Talk:2020 Delhi riots
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Delhi riots article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 20 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving 2020 Delhi riots was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 February 2020. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
1RR now in effect
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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)
Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles)
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
"POV-embattled," by the way, means battlements of POV dot, litter, even crisscross the topic. This is long, but please bear with me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Stage 1
The lead which is locked in the article right now is a summary of the topic, not the main body. It has due weight and overall reliability. In Stage 1, we have cited and summarized content from newspapers:
- (a) which have correspondents based in India.
- (b) whose articles (which are of interest to us) have bylines (i.e. the name of the correspondents shows up below the title of their story) and
- (c) which are published in liberal democracies where there is no significant POV around this issue. (i.e. South Asian newspapers have been ruled out at this stage.)
We have cited from: NYTimes, Washington Post, Independent, Guardian, Times (London), and Le Monde. (There are obviously others as well, which we did not use. I will make a list elsewhere of newspapers which have correspondents based in India.)
By definition, the lead will not have all the notable details. The sources it cites may not have all the notable details either, because their main audience (an international one) may not be conversant with, or generally interested in, all local details. For expansion, therefore, you will need to look at the reliable high-quality Indian sources whose perspectives match the one in the lead, which now serves as a template of DUE.
- Stage 2
In my view, for recent Indian events just six national newspapers in India are enough for fleshing out the details:
The Statesman (Kolkata, founded 1875/1817), The Hindu (Chennai, founded 1878), The Free Press Journal (Mumbai, founded 1928), The Indian Express (Delhi, founded 1933), Deccan Chronicle (Hyderabad, founded 1938), and The Telegraph (Kolkata) (founded 1982)
- Question: Why bother to write such a lead in the first place?
- Answer: Because if we don't, we will not have a DUE summary of the topic against which to measure the neutrality of our additions. Later, when a topic becomes older, text-books, other encyclopedias, reviews of literature, and so forth, become available for determining DUE, but for now, there is nothing else. Also, as the lead is what people read first, and sometimes, they read no further: it is important for it to be comprehensive and neutral, especially when the rest of the article is not.
- Question: Why start with only these six Indian newspapers?
- Answer: Because these newspapers have old traditions of excellence and independence. As print newspapers based in different regions of India, they necessarily have to summarize—in the multi-ethnic Indian context—in a manner that local or digital newspapers do not.
As an example, consider the "peace marches" in the New York Times story, which have been paraphrased in the lead as:
After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu politicians paraded alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims.[1]
References
- ^ Gettleman, Jeffrey; Yasir, Sameer; Raj, Suhasini; Kumar, Hari (12 March 2020), "'If We Kill You, Nothing Will Happen': How Delhi's Police Turned Against Muslims", The New York Times, Photographs by Loke, Atul, retrieved 13 March 2020,
The religiously mixed and extremely crowded neighborhoods in northeastern Delhi that were on fire in late February have cooled. But some Hindu politicians continue to lead so-called peace marches, trotting out casualties of the violence with their heads wrapped in white medical tape, trying to upend the narrative and make Hindus seem like the victims, which is stoking more anti-Muslim hatred.
There are stories about one peace march on February 29 in:
- this Deccan Chronicle story (with byline,
)
- this Hindu story (with byline,
)
- this Indian Express story (with byline
)
- this Statesman story (by their web desk, not OK)
- The Telegraph (Kolkata) Press Trust of India (PTI) feed, (not OK)
- The Telegraph (Kolkata) signed article by Pheroze Vincent, printed two days later (
)
- this Deccan Chronicle story (with byline,
These should, therefore, be used to further expand the topic of peace marches, at least one peace march. Similarly, determining whether there were other marches, before or after, will require examining these sources for other dates.
- Stage 3
- After the main body is fleshed out in such fashion, the lead should be rewritten by summing up the main body. No footnotes, let alone extended quotes, will then be required in the lead unless a statement is highly controversial. But for now, they are essential.
In the language of artificial intelligence, the stages are 1: The lead is written using sources that are relatively low-res (or high-level (OED: high-level: relating to or concerned with a subject, system, or phenomenon as a whole, rather than its particular details.), or macro-level). 2. The main body is fleshed out using sources that are high-res (low-level, micro-level), but in keeping with the content of stage 1 (i.e. DUE). 3. The lead is rewritten as a low-res/high-level version of the main body.
Good luck, @SerChevalerie, NedFausa, SharabSalam, Kautilya3, Slatersteven, and DIYeditor: Pinging also: @RegentsPark, Abecedare, DougWeller, El C, Anachronist, Drmies, Johnbod, Bishonen, and Vanamonde93: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Fowler&fowler, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
- Even though you haven't pinged me, I have been keeping this talk page in my watchlist. You did very well! Thank you, Fowler&fowler. --KartikeyaS (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler's List of foreign newspapers with correspondents in India
Dear @SerChevalerie, NedFausa, SharabSalam, Kautilya3, Slatersteven, DIYeditor, and KartikeyaS343: Pinging also: @RegentsPark, Abecedare, DougWeller, El C, Anachronist, Drmies, Johnbod, Bishonen, and Vanamonde93: Collapsed below is a list I had mentioned above. It is much bigger than I had thought, and there are still some (Haarets, Jerusalem Post, in Israel, South African newspapers) which I have not examined. Still, used judiciously, it may prove useful in the future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- PS I have not added the links/urls for newspapers that rigorously require a subscription, only the titles of the stories. (It is easier to search the title on Google.) If someone wants small blurbs from them, I'm happy to provide them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
North America
Newspapers and other media in the US and Canada with correspondents in India
|
---|
|
United Kingdom and Ireland
Newspapers and other media in the UK and Ireland with correspondents in India
|
---|
|
Europe
Newspapers and other media in Europe with correspondents in India
|
---|
|
Asia and Australia
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Vote
- Support
- Sounds good, I have already used a couple of these for the "Aftermath". SerChevalerie (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose
OI FOWLER NOOOOO!! NedFausa (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please note: in registering my opposition, I used the verbatim wording prescribed here. If I was misled, please advise. NedFausa (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Per wp:consensus "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.", you have to actually make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Once again, WP:BLP applies here - and this is not a discussion page for the riots
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
If multiple reliable sources discuss someone's activities and you want them added to the article, bring them here and suggest your wording.
DO NOT use this page to discuss them (or in fact the riots) - this isn't a forum, this page exists only to discuss improvements to the article. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Once again, we cannot call people terrorists are murders on this page unless they've been convicted
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
I'm removing them from the record when I can as WP:BLP violations. If I catch someone doing it twice I'll block them at least from this talk page and the article. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Should have have some banner at the top or something (not that I think it will matter, as this is all about POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on police reports and a note that Wikipedia is not a place to carry on real world conflicts
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
The policy that we enforce most strictly is our policy on recently deceased and living persons. WP:BLP. Part of that policy, WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."
This policy applies not just to the article but to this talk page. Just to strengthen it, I'm putting the article (and talk page) under our BLP discretionary sanctions.
I hope this explains to all the new editors why Administrators such as myself have been taking the actions that we have taken and will continue to take. If anyone continues to break our policy either here or the article after warnings, they can expect to be blocked from editing at all, or banned from any pages in the sanction area. Too many editors are treating the article and talk page in a WP:BATTLEGROUND matter. Wikipedia is not here to WP:right great wrongs. Probably something like this belongs at the top of the page, although too many new editors probably don't read anything there. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic (being euphemistic) article
Happened to glance through the article. It's so bad, it forced me to WP editing section after several years and post this remark. It can more rightfully belong to trashpedia than wikipedia.
I've, in fact, taken a snapshot of the article in the shape it is as of today (and locked further till 27-Sep-2020), as a memoir of WP spreading fake news, and later, to use as an artifact to share on social media, when the extent of fake news (includes 1. fiction presented as fact, 2. fact presented as fiction, 3. facts suppressed given they are not conducive to POV; most media portals when proliferating fake news restrict them to the 3rd, but this unabashedly engages in the first two also) in the article becomes so untenable it can't be supported despite 'cancel culture' and 'escapism' of WP editors and admins by citing one-liner "read WP:blah" when they're reminded they've collected trash, though supported by 200 POV references. isoham (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- ISoham Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources. If those sources are in error, you will need to take that up with them. If you feel they should not be considered reliable sources, take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Feel free to offer any reliable sources to support changes you feel are needed to the article- but you should review prior postings on this page as you are not the first person to make this sort of comment. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected on Wikipedia. That a source might be biased does not itself disqualify it from being considered a reliable source, as long as they have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. This even has passionate people on each side, with views based in ancient religions. The dispute will not be solved here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- what facts do we suppress (please read wp:blp before answering)?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ISoham: if you'd like people to write longer "this is why" reasoning they can, but the 1-liners are used to avoid dropping in the entire policy each time. The sourcing policies are comprehensive reasoning that distils literally millions of words of discussion. So instead of moaning about "one-liners", read them and respond in line with that. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Slatersteven: You asked, "what facts do we suppress"? I have already given two examples above. The fact is, police investigation is now revealing that the riots were planned, primarily by muslims. Yet, the very first line of the wiki article begins with a lie, that the riots were *caused* by Hindu mob. This now a disproven blatant lie. At best it can be presented as opinion. Given that the events are still under investigation, it is highly dishonest to begin the article with a statement like that. And despite my request, the changes have not been made, even though I have provided the relevant sources. This is how you guys are suppressing facts. Ultimately, the credibility of Wikipedia will suffer, just like the credibility of Western leftist media already has.
- The police investigation has not been tried in court yes, so its not a fact, its an accusation. RS all say what we say, and until RS say otherwise we reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
ISoham, I don't see any edit requests from you, so you can't accuse editors of not incorporating your changes when you haven't listed them out formally. Nor do I see you citing any reliable sources. In any case, Wikipedia Talk pages are not a forum, so unless you have something significant to contribute to the discussion wrt improvement of the article, this discussion is closed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is always a circular logic which is being used every time I try to reduce bias in this article (especially in the lead). Only certain biased articles in NYT, Guardian are being used. It is beyond belief that for how an incident happening in India, someone publishing in USA is more reliable. Also, every attempt to reduce bias by citing other reliable sources (in the lead) is scuttled and finally when run out of arguments, they say that it is fixed and no change allowed. Most of the people reading this article know that this article is trash and is written with a certain agenda. For example, in the lead, it is included that Hindus were shouting "Jai Shri Ram". But Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been pushed down so that Hinduphobic narrative remains. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- With a controversial subject, especially in cases like this with a dispute with animosity between two ancient religions, reporting from outside the area can be more dispassionate. In any event, thus far, no independent reliable sources have been offered; feel free to propose changes supported by reliable sources here- keeping in mind policies like WP:BLP and the fact that primary sources are not what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- There is always a circular logic which is being used every time I try to reduce bias in this article (especially in the lead). Only certain biased articles in NYT, Guardian are being used. It is beyond belief that for how an incident happening in India, someone publishing in USA is more reliable. Also, every attempt to reduce bias by citing other reliable sources (in the lead) is scuttled and finally when run out of arguments, they say that it is fixed and no change allowed. Most of the people reading this article know that this article is trash and is written with a certain agenda. For example, in the lead, it is included that Hindus were shouting "Jai Shri Ram". But Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been pushed down so that Hinduphobic narrative remains. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Here, reporting from inside is far more dispassionate than the rabid Hinduphobic articles of Washington Post, NYT and The Guardian. I have proposed changes several times, with reliable sources, but to no avail. Not just all other view points have been excluded. There is blatant violation of WP:NPOV e.g.
a.) Regarding neutral tone : "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article". In this article, a consistent Hinduphobic tone is adopted.
b) WP:NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." There are several instances in the lead where opinions are presented as facts
i.) In the lead it is mentioned that "Muslims were marked as target for violence" while in the reference article in article in the link it is just in quote attribution. Some resident named Praveen said 'We were targeted because we were muslims'. But the lead mentions it as an overarching fact. This line should be removed from the lead.
ii.)Again in the lead "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised". All 3 sources quoted present it as in quote attribution to someone's statement or as an example case. But the article presents it as an overarching fact.
I have several other examples. But let us just test this out. Shall we remove the two lines because they violate WP:NPOV
1. "Muslims were marked as target for violence" and
2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- No, as NPOV also make it clear we do not give false POV. The claims are sourced to high quality independent sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Sachin.cba, we have entertained your repeated circular discussions multiple times before. If you have nothing new to say then please refrain from commenting on threads over here. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- I read the entire conversation here and the main article. I only have one point that this main article pronounces a judgment against the Hindu community right in the first line of the article, to quote "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." It has a social implication. It comes right on top of Google. And it is backed by only 2 news articles. In first, the author is quoting an ex-IPS officer, but NOT writing explicitly how the ex-IPS came to that conclusion? what information is he having to claim such a thing, "They not only openly sided with the Hindu mobs attacking Muslims but also used brutal force against them". In the second article, the line which comes closest in claiming the culpability of Hindus is, "witnesses to the violence saw something different. As mobs swept through neighborhoods, burning homes and killing people, the police often stepped back if the crowd was Hindu. But when it was Muslims, witnesses said, the police could be vicious". This too is an anecdotal claim, plus it shows the biasness of police, and not who attacked whom. I am writing this so that moderators consider my preposition that, please explain the article and do not pass judgments when there is no evidence in the public domain. India, especially northern India, is slightly more communally charged. Unverified claims can tear the social fabric here. Please do not pass judgment. ---- Ritwik.m07 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie Can you quote, where I have repeated any discussion. Previously, I had quoted different sources to expand POV. Here, I am not asking to change POV, nor asking to quote different sources. Here, what is being claimed as fact is not even claimed as fact by RS quoted. Anyway, I have already received a threat from on my talk page to drop it. Slatersteven. Shows plenty !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- "which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", so yes wee have RS saying it, do you have RS saying this is not ture?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ritwik.m07, please also see the archives of this Talk page in detail, and also the other pinned sections of this Talk page. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
- SerChevalerie All I am saying is, I don't have any RS that claims Muslims attacked Hindus first. Some RS have written it but as testimonies, but testimonies are not reliable in themselves. Nor I have found any RS which claims, 'who attacked whom first is still known'. Losses were on both sides, yes in terms of numbers Muslims suffered more than Hindus; these are facts, and it is okay to report the facts. But the first paragraph claims something which is an interpretation of facts (by RS), and not a fact in itself. All I am asking is, consider the social impact of the first paragraph of this article. The memory of these riots is still fresh and such judgments (even coming from RS) can worsen the situation. Peace out. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)::
- [1] "The violence erupted in February after the leaders from the governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their supporters attacked peaceful sit-ins", yes the source says hindos attacked first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- Neither BJP is representative of all Hindus, nor the people at peaceful sit-ins were only muslims. This attack was politically motivated and not based on religious grounds. The riots happened on religious grounds.---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- And not all British rules India, that does not mean it was not British ruled.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- "British" had a representative i.e. monarch+PM who claimed that India is a colony of Britain. Hence, India was British ruled. Contrary to this case, where neither BJP is representative of Hindus, nor any of its members are. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- But they are Hindu, but would you rather it said "nationalist Hindu mobs", so to make it clear it was not every Hindu in India?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- They attacked peaceful protesters not because they are Hindu. They attacked because they wanted to hurt anyone who went against their favorite political party. So I would rather say, "violent mobs" or "politically motivated violent mobs", just to clear that their nationalism or religion had nothing to do with their extreme actions/views. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- RS say they were Hindu mobs attacking Muslim women, we do not use wp:or to write articles (or would you like me to write what I think of them?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- They attacked peaceful protesters not because they are Hindu. They attacked because they wanted to hurt anyone who went against their favorite political party. So I would rather say, "violent mobs" or "politically motivated violent mobs", just to clear that their nationalism or religion had nothing to do with their extreme actions/views. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- But they are Hindu, but would you rather it said "nationalist Hindu mobs", so to make it clear it was not every Hindu in India?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- "British" had a representative i.e. monarch+PM who claimed that India is a colony of Britain. Hence, India was British ruled. Contrary to this case, where neither BJP is representative of Hindus, nor any of its members are. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- And not all British rules India, that does not mean it was not British ruled.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Neither BJP is representative of all Hindus, nor the people at peaceful sit-ins were only muslims. This attack was politically motivated and not based on religious grounds. The riots happened on religious grounds.---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- [1] "The violence erupted in February after the leaders from the governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their supporters attacked peaceful sit-ins", yes the source says hindos attacked first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
- SerChevalerie All I am saying is, I don't have any RS that claims Muslims attacked Hindus first. Some RS have written it but as testimonies, but testimonies are not reliable in themselves. Nor I have found any RS which claims, 'who attacked whom first is still known'. Losses were on both sides, yes in terms of numbers Muslims suffered more than Hindus; these are facts, and it is okay to report the facts. But the first paragraph claims something which is an interpretation of facts (by RS), and not a fact in itself. All I am asking is, consider the social impact of the first paragraph of this article. The memory of these riots is still fresh and such judgments (even coming from RS) can worsen the situation. Peace out. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)::
- Ritwik.m07, please also see the archives of this Talk page in detail, and also the other pinned sections of this Talk page. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
But this is not about how you perceive that Al-Jazeera article. This is about how you write this specific article, especially the first paragraph. Simply stating "caused chiefly by violent mobs attacking Muslims", would be very helpful in adding more neutrality to this article. ---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ritwik.m07, please read the full first paragraph, instead of simply quoting sentences out of context. If you have no further comments than taking this discussion in circles (as I said, read the archives and the first section of this Talk page), then I am consiering this discussion closed. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Change in Interfaith solidarity section
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace the following line in Interfaith solidarity section:
Akali Dal leader and former MLA, Majinder Singh Sirsa, opened up his gurudwara to those seeking shelter amidst the rioting.
by
Sikh community opened up its gurudwaras to those seeking shelter amidst the rioting.
According to the source cited [2], Majinder Singh Sirsa informed them that Sikh community has opened up its gurudwaras. He was not the one who opened it up. Secondly to say that Majinder Singh Sirsa, opened up "his" gurudwara suggests that it is his personal gurudwara which is not true as gurudwara belongs to Sikh community as a whole and not to him. Jasksingh (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
SerChevalerie Proposing the following updates in this section:
... Muslims visited their Hindu neighbors and assured their safety.[39]
On the night of February 25, Muslim residents of Indira Vihar protected a Shiv Temple from being vandalized.[1]
In Chand Bagh, one of the worst-affected localities in the riot-hit North East Delhi, one Muslim man rushed two of his Hindu friends in his small hut to protect them from frenzy mob outside.[2] Moreover, a group of Muslim residents stood guard outside the home where a Hindu couple was getting married. [3]
Muslims in Mustafabad confronted and sent back a violent mob which came to attack Hindus in their neighborhood.[4][5][6]
In Shiv-vihar, a Hindu resident sheltered a Muslim couple with their children and dressed them up as Hindus. [7]
Locals in Yamuna Vihar in northeast Delhi formed a human chain to escort school children to safety. [8]
The teen from Khajoori Khas (who saw his friends clashing as rioters) was saved, fed, and comforted by Muslim neighbors.[9]
A Hindu man volunteered to remove the Hanuman statue which was placed on the entry of mosque, along with a saffron flag which was hoisted on one of the minaret of the mosque. [10]
... gathered in front of the Sacred Heart Cathedral, New Delhi, to pray in solidarity.[142]
In the aftermath, a Muslim community in Saharanpur decided to end a 10-year old land dispute with Sikh community out of gratitude for the help given by Sikhs to the people affected by the recent violence in Northeast Delhi. [11] In Punjab, a Muslim groom wore a traditional Sikh turban to express gratitude towards Sikh community for rescuing Muslims during riots in north-east Delhi. [12]
References
- ^ "Muslims protect Shiv Temple during violence in NE Delhi". business-standard. ANI. February 28, 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ Singh, Mausami (February 27, 2020). "Where sanity prevailed: Story of hope when Delhi rioters ran amok". India Today. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ "'Muslim Brothers Protecting Me Today': Hindu Bride Weds in Delhi". Quint. 28 Feb 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ "Delhi riots: Muslim neighbours brave mob wrath to save Hindus in minority-dominated area". The New India Express. 27 February 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ "Not going anywhere; we are safe amidst Muslim neighbours, says lone Brahmin family in Mustafabad". ANI. 28 February 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ Khan, Hera; Alam, Mohd Irshad (27 Feb 2020). "Amid violence in northeast Delhi, Muslims in Mustafabad vow to protect their Hindu neighbours". Quint. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ Mishra, Sfoorti (February 29, 2020). "Delhi violence: Saved by Hindu neighbour, recalls Muslim man". The Free Press Journal. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ KC, Archana (26 February 2020). "Delhi: Yamuna Vihar Residents Form Human Chain Around School Kids, Escort Them To Safety". India Times. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ Bhandari, Hemani (Februrary 29, 2020). "Delhi violence: Hindu teen recounts how Muslim neighbors stood guard for him". Hindu. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Sharma, Betwa (5 March 2020). "Delhi Hero: Meet The Hindu Man Who Removed The Saffron Flag From A Burnt Mosque". Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
- ^ Menon, Aditya (02 Mar 2020). "#Goodnews: Sikhs, Muslims End 10-Year-Old Saharanpur Land Dispute". Quint. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
{{cite news}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ "Muslim ties turban on his wedding to honour Sikhs for helping Delhi violence victims". India Today. IANS. 8 March 2020. Retrieved 29 July 2020.
Ritwik.m07 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ritwik.m07, most of this is WP:RECENTISM. Try to rework this after reading WP:10YEARTEST. Also, try to use better quality sources, as mentioned in § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles). Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- SerChevalerie WP:RECENTISM mostly deals with "long-term significance of the information" or "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?". This is an article about communal riots. If in the long-term, instances highlighting communal harmony will not be relevant, then I doubt why the section of "Interfaith Solidarity" even exists. Moreover, can you point out why the currently mentioned things in that section is NOT WP:RECENTISM but the above addition is? And regarding the sources, out of given 12, the given article already cites 11 of them (assuming reliable). The one which is not cited is The Free Press Journal, which is mentioned as reliable in Fowler&fowler's section you mentioned.
My intention to add to this section of "Interfaith solidarity" was to counter the communal tension this article is knowingly/unknowingly creating by blindly quoting interpretation of facts by foreign publishers, as facts. So can you please elaborate, how can I "rework" this? Do language needs change? or what? Also, a second professional opinion would be helpful Fowler&fowler Doug Weller Slatersteven ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)- Ritwik.m07, the reason that this article causes communal tension is because it was a riot. Throwing a few instances of "interfaith solidarity" in this article won't fix the situation on the ground, unfortunately.
- Regarding your concerns on the existing section having WP:RECENTISM, yes, I wholeheartedly agree. We had a discussion here on removing it entirely, if not trimming it down significantly. However, we could not achieve consensus.
- Regarding the sources, we intend to eventually rewrite the entire article using higher quality sources. Call it a matter of opinion, but since we've used them the article's WP:NPOV has significantly increased.
- I'm not completely dismissing your proposal. But instances like the ones you mentioned about Saharanpur and Punjab are definitely not going to work here, since we intend to cover only the area of North East Delhi. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- SerChevalerie WP:RECENTISM mostly deals with "long-term significance of the information" or "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?". This is an article about communal riots. If in the long-term, instances highlighting communal harmony will not be relevant, then I doubt why the section of "Interfaith Solidarity" even exists. Moreover, can you point out why the currently mentioned things in that section is NOT WP:RECENTISM but the above addition is? And regarding the sources, out of given 12, the given article already cites 11 of them (assuming reliable). The one which is not cited is The Free Press Journal, which is mentioned as reliable in Fowler&fowler's section you mentioned.
Is this accusation true?
https://twitter.com/theskindoctor13/status/1289170058183245824
"They used Rana Ayyub's opinion article in Forbes as citation to call Delhi riot a "state sponsored pogrom of MuxIims"."
opinion piece is not reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:48E:FB86:11FD:E60A:F205:A061 (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- I suggest you read our article, not some one on Twitter. We do not say this, it is false.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Biased article
One sided narrative of a very complex issue is not acceptable. Only limited and historically left leaning news outlets have been used for reference. Srijan K (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- The ask the RS to do better reporting, not us for using it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Srijan K, this Talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have any specific suggestions to make towards the improvement of the article, then please go ahead. Else, your comments are opinions are not welcome here. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
- Srijan K (ec) See the numerous other prior discussions that raise the point you are attempting to make. If you have specific changes you would like to propose, please do so, keeping in mind that any changes must be sourced to independent reliable sources. Also be aware of the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
- Please note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are provided so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to their bias. This event has passionate feelings based in ancient religions on each side, and we will not solve any religious strife here on Wikipedia, this is why we focus on the sources. If you have issues with bias in the sources, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Recent status of case shows that the Wiki article's alleged perpetrators in riot are biased. Please refer more references from recent ongoing case to have audience know about it. Spaceriot Virtual (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "the Wiki article's alleged perpetrators in riot are biased"? Ignoring that, we can refer to the court case (if that's what you mean) if the case details are readily available on the internet. If the court case is not written about, you can add that to the article or create an Edit Request. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use Indian English
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- C-Class Disaster management articles
- Low-importance Disaster management articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- C-Class Firefighting articles
- Low-importance Firefighting articles
- WikiProject Firefighting articles
- C-Class Hinduism articles
- Low-importance Hinduism articles
- C-Class India articles
- Mid-importance India articles
- C-Class India articles of Mid-importance
- C-Class Delhi articles
- High-importance Delhi articles
- C-Class Delhi articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Delhi articles
- C-Class Indian history articles
- Unknown-importance Indian history articles
- C-Class Indian history articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject Indian history articles
- C-Class Indian politics articles
- High-importance Indian politics articles
- C-Class Indian politics articles of High-importance
- WikiProject Indian politics articles
- WikiProject India articles
- C-Class Islam-related articles
- Low-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class Law enforcement articles
- Low-importance Law enforcement articles
- WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
- C-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press