Jump to content

Talk:2020 Delhi riots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 119.74.169.63 (talk) at 14:06, 21 August 2020 (→‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2020). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:IPA AE

1RR now in effect

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

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

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

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

Stage 1

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

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

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

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

Stage 2

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North America

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

United Kingdom and Ireland

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

Europe

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

Asia and Australia

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

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

Vote

Support
Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

Every request to include reliable references about the other side of the story are getting denied by the editors. The page is clearly blaming hindus for the riot. It is blaming mr kapil mishra for the riot. But mr tahir Hussain's name cannot be found in the article. Because no indian court has convicted him yet. Has any indian court convicted the hindus? Has any indian court convicted mr kapil mishra? No discussion is possible here because the output is clear. The editors will not include any valid reference about mr Hussain's involvement. They will not included any reference which shows that not only hindus, the muslims were also involved in the riots. There seems to be no violation of wp:blp when including Mr kapil mishra's name more than 30 times in the article. This article is an absolute violation of wp:npov. So no discussion is possible here. The editors are pushing their pov. So what else can be done? Where to raise complaints agains this religiously biased article? Quanta127 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:BLP is not getting violated when the entire article indicates that Mr Kapil mishra is the main culprit behind the riots? Numerous references are included which indicate that mr mishra is the mastermind of the riot. Does WP:BLP apply to people of a particular religion. If not then where is Mr. Tahir Hussain's name? Including Mr Hussain's name is violation of WP:BLP but including Mr Kapil mishra's name is allowed? This is clearly POV pushing by the editors. If the editors are including Mr kapil mishra's name then include Mr tahir Hussain's name also. If if the editors do not want to include Mr. Hussain's name then remove Mr. mishra's name. There is WP:BLP violation by the editors of the page. So please do the necessary. Quanta127 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

WP:BLP is violated in this page because allegations made against Mr Kapil Mishra. He is a living human being. He has not been convicted by any indian court. On the other hand Mr Tahir Hussain's name is nowhere to be found, because of WP:BLP violation. Even Mr. Hussain's confession about "teaching the Hindus a lesson" is also nowhere to be seen in the article. The excuse "he has not been convicted by an Indian court". Has Mr kapil mishra been convicted by an indian court. Seems like the editors are pushing their POV on the excuse of WP:BLP. WP:BLP is for all living persons. Then why WP:BLP is not violated for Mr. Kapil Mishra but it is getting violated for Mr. Hussain. What is the reason is not personal bias? Quanta127 (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

consensus appears to be against adding this name as the mastermind. closing.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change "North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed" to "North East Delhi riots apparently masterminded by Tahir Hussain were multiple waves of bloodshed".Sanathiyer95 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Sanathiyer95 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please see the numerous discussions above about this; we do not put conclusions or accusations drawn through police interrogations in articles. When this person is convicted in a court of law of a crime, then we can talk. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why kapil Mishra's name appears more than 20 times. He has been projected as the mail culprit behind the delhi riots. Has he been convicted by an indian court? Then remove kapil mishra's name also. Quanta127 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RS are what we use.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Tahir Hussain has himself acknowledged that he instigated the riots. He "wanted to teach the Hindus a lesson". There are numerous references. About Mr. Tahir Hussain. I am not giving any references here because in the past I had given multiple authentic references, but none of them were included. I tried multiple times to show valid references. None were included. There are hundreds of reference supporting the other side of the story. There are hundreds of references mentioning Mr. Tahir Hussain's confession regarding the delhi riots. But but all references were termed as not authentic. This is shameful. Not even including valid references because thise are against the political or religious bias of the editors. This is not an Wikipedia article but a personal blog post. Quanta127 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow wp:npov This is Wikipedia. It should never have religiously biased articles. There maybe 90% references blaming one religion. Articles can be naturally biased because of references. But making an article biased by not including many authentic references is totally wrong and it violates wp:npov Quanta127 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, its why were are trying to use non Indian sources, ones with less of a vested interest in the situation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did Hussain have legal counsel during the interrogation? (I doubt it since they would have told him to not confess) 331dot (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! @331dot. See this is what I am talking about. Did u see how baised your comment was. Hussain made a confession and now you want to verify whether if he had legal counsel of during the interrogation. Do u know he didn't have a legal counsel? Now lets talk about Kapil mishra. The article has made him the prime accused. He is the main culprit according to the article. How did u verify this? Was he found guilty by an indian court? This is amazing! Quanta127 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because confessions can be retracted in court (or even rejected) if not collected according to statute.

So until he is tried and convicted wp:crime comes into it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven I agree. But if u see clearly many indian references have been included which are talking about one side of the story. I am not telling that those references are wrong. The same news channels have published articles which shie the other side of the story. Those references are missing in the article. A confession is a confession. That should be included with proper references. Editors are not judges. If there is any reference which shows that the interrogation was not fare then that should be included. Now the editors can also disregard court ruling by saying that the "was the trial fare?" With all due respect you are not the judge. Plase include valid references to make the article fare. And if there are reports about unfair trail or unfair interrogation then include that too. But please, the editors should not become judges. Clearly for one particular community references are published without any verification. But for another community the references are getting denied on grounds of this or that argument. Quanta127 (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not saying he is guilty or not guilty, we are not saying anything. Thus we are not setting ourselves up as judges. We are in fact waiting on judge to pass judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven ok. I totally agree with you. Then please do not make kapil mishra the prime accused. Do not make him the chief conspirator of the riot. Maybe the court will find him as the main culprit of the riot. Remove his name from the header where the reason of the riots is mentioned as kapil mishra's speech. And if u are not removing kapil mishra's name then please include tahir Hussain's name also. Quanta127 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making any changes without a better reason then a confession that is [[1]] "admissible evidence in court because it was made in front of a police officer". Hussain’s lawyer Javed Ali said the police are manipulating facts. “Tahir Hussain has not admitted to anything with regard to Delhi riots cases.". So no its not a fact, its disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven sir, I am talking about Mr. Kapil Mishra. Has he been convicted by an Indian court? You are concerned about Mr. Tahir Hussein. Okay do not include his name. Do u know that he is the main culprit of the delhi riots. What about his rights? So Mr tahir Hussain has rights but mr Kapil mishra has no rights. And if an indian court finds Mr. Tahir Hussain guily and his lawer says the trial was not fair. Will u then include the judgement? Or will u say that the matter can go to a higher court.. So innocent until proven guilty.

So. Okay do it include Mr tabir Hussain's name. But then remou mr kapil mishra's name as the main culprit of the riots. Let the india justice system decide on that. Quanta127 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have we accused him of anything? If someone is found guilty then we can include what they are guilty of (unless RS question the verdict, then we also include that).Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can this article make Mr kapil mishra (a living human being) as the chief conspirator of a riot without any proof. When it comes to Mr. Tahir Hussain, you are saying innocent until proven guilty by an indian court. Then what about Mr. Kapil Mishra? In the heading section the reason of the riots is stated as the hate speech by Mr. Kapil mishra. Where is the logic here? If without any proof the article is making Mr. Kapil Mishra the main culprit of the riot and not even including mr tahir Hussain's name because he has not been found guilty by an indian court then I am sorry to say but this is a religiously biased article against a particular community. Quanta127 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not, in fact we do not say he was a conspirator.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Have we accused him of anything?" Sir, did u see how many times his name appear on the site? In the header section his hate speech has been clearly mentioned as the reason behind the riot. His name appears almost 30 times.

Okay then. I understand what u r trying to say. Then please include Mr. Tabir Hussain's name. Do not make him guilty of anything before the court ruling but please include his name with references, just like the case of Mr kapil misha. Quanta127 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do include Hussain's name, and what he is charged with. Do we say "Mr kapil mishra was the chief conspirator" behind the riots, do we accuse him (not his speech) him of anything?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven My closing statement- I never said Tahir Hussain's name is not there in the article. I said his name appears only once. According to the editors, that is because he has not been proven guilty yet. So, we should not include even his own testimony, because that confession may later change in a court. Fair enough. The only line containing Tahir Hussain's name in the entire article is :

  • "Tahir Hussain, who was an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor, was arrested for allegedly murdering Sharma"

Now let's compare this with Mr Kapil Mishra's name. He has not been proven guilty by an Indian court. Let's see the coverage of Mr Kapil Mishra's name in the Article.

In the sidebar: "

  • Caused by: Hate speech, provocation, confrontation, CAA Protests, mass mobilization, religious nationalism
  • Goals: Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests, Ethnic and religious persecution

" All the references have Mr. Kapil Mishra's name as the conspirator of the riot. Mr Tahir Hussain's name is nowhere to be found. The references of the sidebar section are blaming Hindus in general (e.g. Ethnic and religious persecution).

  • "Kapil Mishra, called for Delhi Police to clear the roads, failing which he threatened to do so himself with help from his supporters"
  • "Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra and his supporters reached a protest site at Maujpur Chowk "to give an answer to Jaffrabad [blockade]"
  • "Some of them blamed Kapil Mishra for the riots"
  • "surprised the court by admitting that they had not watched the video of the inflammatory speech given by Kapil Mishra"
  • "The Court then played the video clip of Kapil Mishra's speech"
  • "The bench expressed "anguish" over the inability of the Delhi Police to control the riots and its failure to file FIRs against four BJP leaders, Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma for their hate speeches."
  • "Delhi against jihadi violence. Kapil Mishra was seen at the rally"
  • "After Mishra's ultimatum, violence erupted."

I am not saying these references are wrong. I am just saying that there are numerous references for Mr. Mishra. He is a living human being, just like Mr. Tahir Hussain. Just like Mr. Hussain, he is also not proven guilty by an Indian court. Then where is Mr. Tahir Hussain's name? Why only one single line for him while Mr. Mishra's name appears approximately 30 times. There are detailed descriptions about his hate speech, his incitement of the rioters. there are many references indicating that he is the chief conspirator of the riot. Of course, there are valid references against Mr Hussain. But none are getting included. Mr. Tahir Hussain's name cannot be included without Micro-level verification but Mr. Mishra's name can be included at will? Even his own confession about "teaching the Hindus a lesson" cannot be included because he is not proven guilty by an Indian court.

The entire header section blames Hindus for the riots. There is one line mentioning that Muslims also attacked Hindus. But the line mentions that the Muslims had valid reasons for the attack.

  • "In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence; on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns."

In simple language - violence by Muslims was justified.

There is this line in the header section:

  • "[the riot] caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims."

So, no verification is needed now? I am not requesting to remove this statement. But there are multiple references that state that it was pre-planned by Mr Hussain and many other co-conspirators? And that the riot was caused by Muslims attacking Hindus? Why are those references not getting included? So, without any court ruling, it got established in this article that the Hindus are the culprits. No court ruling is required this time?

The best line is this:

  • "Videos showed police acting in a coordinated manner against Muslims, on occasion purposefully helping Hindu gangs. Witnesses said some police officers joined the attacks on Muslims"

Wow! Big acquisition. But surely no verification is required now. Is this a personal blog post? I am not against this statement either. But there is another side of the story. Why are those references not getting included? Every request to include Mr. Hussain's name or to include the other side of the story is getting denied by the editors. The editors are requiring micro-level verification to include any statement about Mr. Hussain. But the same editors are happily including numerous statements about Mr. Kapil Mishra or in general statements about Hindus. It is now clear that the other side of the story will not be included by the editors. Even if the Indian court finds Mr. Hussain guilty, then also it might not be included. It won't be included not because there aren't any valid references, but because of personal bias (wp:npov).

  • I'm not sure how it is biased for me to ask legitimate questions as to if this man had legal counsel. I have zero interest in this case beyond being a Wikipedia editor. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, the question was legitimate. If legitimate question is asked for one particular community and no questions are asked for another community then it automatically becomes biased. Micro-level of verifications are required before including the name if Mr. Tahir Hussein. The main objections of the editors is "Mr. Hussain has not been found guilty by an indian court". But Mr. Mishra's name appears more than 30 times in the entire article. Has he been found guilty by an Indian court? There are many references which indicate that Mr. Mishra is the main culprit. What RS is followed when including Mr mishra's name? Not a single line can be found in the entire article which indicates the role of Mr. Hussain. There is only one line stating that he was arrested for the murder of an intelligence officer. Nothing else. There are numerous references which show that the riot was pre planned by Mr. Hussain and others (of course he has not been convicted by an indian court, just like mr kapil mishra), but the editors do not want to include those. The editors are making it impossible to upload any references about mr Hussain. Many difficult questions are asked before uploading even a single line about Mr Hussain. But any references about Mr kapil mishra's name is appearing without any problems. Mr Hussain is enjoying his religious privileges in this totally biased article. Quanta127 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of reply is this?

———————————————- 

Not done Please see the numerous discussions above about this; we do not put conclusions or accusations drawn through police interrogations in articles. When this person is convicted in a court of law of a crime, then we can talk. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

—————————————————-

How can you blame hindus for riots, did you see any hindu getting convicted in court of law? If now, why are you blaming whole community? When There are tons of evidence against Tahir Hussain and a confession! Alpha2211 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot, if kapil mishra is not convicted by court of law how can you blame delhi riots on him? Tahir Hussain, for whom there are tons of video evidences and a confession by himself, who planned these riots in advance is not even blamed. What is this bias about? Alpha2211 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot No logical argument. Just repeating the same line again and again and again. Then about Mr kapil mishra. I have said it a 1000 times. Has mr mishra been convicted by an indian court? Why his name appears 30 times. You wont include mr Hussain's name but you will include mr mishra's name. Where is the logic now. Then remove mr mishra's name also. Mr mishra is a hindu. Is that why his name appears more than 30 times? Quanta127 (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot you do not want to include mr tahir Hussain's name without court order. Then why are u allowing inclusion of Mr. Kapil Mishra's name before court order. Absolute violation of wp:npov. This is truly shameful. Editors are using their personal bias to distort the truth. They have become the judges and blaming the hindus. Quanta127 (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@311dot "When this person is convicted in a court of law of a crime, then we can talk."

Then what about mr kapil mishra? Has is convicted by which court? Is he convicted by default because he is a Hindu? Quanta127 (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. Just POV pushing by the editors. Even discussion is not possible because suddenly discussions are getting closed saying that consensus has been reached. Where is the consensus? This article is a pure violation of WP:NPOV. When there is no argument, just close the discussion. This is shameful. Violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV Quanta127 (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no personal bias in this matter. I don't live in India and I am not Muslim or Hindu. It's not a crime (I think) to lead a group of people to "to give an answer to Jaffrabad" and the article also notes that Mishra rejects the allegations. He did not confess to a crime and the source of information related to him is not a police interrogation where he did not have legal counsel. 331dot (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do not blame Hidoos, RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot clearly, this article is biased. Hindu community is blamed in very beginning of the article without any proof, arrests or confession(where evidences suggest muslims pre planned riots and got funding also). It doesnt matter who you are or where you live, you can not blame one religion over other without proof or convictions by court of law. Let wikipedia be the fair place. If this continues, we will have to let social media know about this biased article against hindus and also government of india to look into articles which has grudge against india and ban wikipedia itself. Alpha2211 (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha2211: No, the article's fine — you just don't like it. Wikipedia remains fair and impartial, but discusses what the majority of reliable sources say; see WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Re your threat to let social media know about this please know that nobody is forcing you to edit Wikipedia, and if you truly believe all of the things you are saying, you're more than welcome to find a different encyclopedia? —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above threat means this page may need full protection for a bit.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MelbourneStar we are not talking about fine or not fine. Something is falsely written without Evidence or court judgement. It is biased. Evidences show otherwise. Why dont you take your bias to another encyclopedia? And let wikipedia be a free and fair place? Alpha2211 (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we are talking about what wp:rs say. If there is a problem with bias take it up with the RS, not us.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do i take up with wp:rs, why my links are not making to talk page? Alpha2211 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You write to them and demand they correct their lies. As to your links, I see no links in your edits.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha2211 Please be aware of the no legal threats policy. While no one here can stop you from exercising any legal rights you have in your country, you cannot make legal threats here on Wikipedia. If you do initiate a legal action or otherwise involve the authorities, you will have to be blocked until the legal action is concluded. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Why people who make this page biased, without evidence and ignoring evidence should not be blocked? I want to know the answer! Who gives you right to blame hindu community in delhi riots? Where all the investigations, video proofs, confessions point that arrested muslim leader got funding, prepared for riots for a month. You are completely changining the direction of culprits and victims. If it was not proven in court you can not say “riots caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims“. Alpha2211 (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its policy its called wp:rs, and wp:crime, and wp:blp (after all the accused's lawyers denied he confessed). We go with what RS say, and even if the riot was panned it does not mean the main rioters were no Hindus, after all I can start a fight and you and 15 of your mates can join in and me the main culprits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha2211 As noted, if you disagree with what reliable sources say, you need to take that up with them them. There isn't really more to say about it. I invite you to edit any of the other six million plus articles that Wikipedia has. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which court of law has proven “main rioters were hindus”? Please keep wikipedia from your personal opinions. If its not proven in court, you can not claim hindus were rioters and muslims were saints. Youtube is full of video evidences “tahir hussain” participating in riots. Cops are investigating his links with people who funded ruots months before it happenned Alpha2211 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are providing me with insight as to the religious strife and bigotry in India, but that's not what this page is for. Repeating the same thing over and over again will not get others to agree with you. Please move on. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is very conveniently hiding riot details of muslims and projecting hindus as cruel.

Muslims with “ lacerated genitals “ is put prominently

Ankit Sharma(Intelligence bureau staffer) , who was stabbed 400 times by tahir hussain before throwing his body in drainage is hidden completely.

When some is asking to blame muslim leader for riots, you say its not proven in court. Is everything in this article proven in court? Please dont make wikipedia as your convenience of lies or agenda.

Stick to the point if it is not proven in court, you can not mention here. Hindus were never proven “main rioters “ in any court.

This is plain conspiracy to blame only hundus where all evidences, arrests investigations and confessions prove muslims funded, plnned in advance and executed riots.

Wikipedia users seems to be ready what to write before riots happened! 

Alpha2211 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ankit Sharma hidden, whilst not named we mention him in the third line of the lede, that is not "hidden".Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha2211 You need to speak to the sources that report what we are summarizing. If you do not move on from this matter, you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not warn users here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven, ankit sharma is neither named nor brutality of his murder by muslims mentioned. While on second paragrph, injuries to muslims is described in detail. Why do you have to describe injuries of only muslims? Alpha2211 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to search the talk archives you will see I have argued that the lede should not contain details of injuries.Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven then mention in the 2nd paragraph where you mentioned about muslim injuries. My point is why mention injuries on muslims only? 

Alpha2211 (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are paid people here who are completely misrepresenting wikipedia. Picking sources which are biased. The sources in article are questionable. It is well known fact that journalists are paid to make them write whatever you want. Investigations by delhi police, confession of tahir hussain is completely ignored sighting court has not proven. There is no problem blaming hindus when it is also not proven in court.

Block me if you want, but people coming here will find out conspiracy hatched here to demonize hindus for riots which was actually, planned, funded and organized by muslims.

Ironically you trust journalists but not delhi police. Delhi police is answerable to Judicial system and protect constitution of India. Journalists are not answerable to anyone. Alpha2211 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha2211 Journalists are answerable to their readers; as has been suggested to you, please contact the sources cited if you wish them to retract what you feel is incorrect information. The police are not always impartial when it comes to their own actions, which is why police documents are not acceptable as a source of information and why Wikipedia requires third party independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@311dot basically you are saying that it is not a biased article. We are the ones who are biased. The article is not biased against the Hindus. The article is blaming the Hindus because of RS. Great! Then where are the RS's which are blaming the Muslims? Where are the RS's which are blaming Mr. Tahir Hussain. They are also RS, aren't they? You are saying you are totally unbiased but you are choosing one set of RS's and not even allowing the other set of RS's. Then based on those references you should also include "chiefly caused by muslims attacking hindus". If it is an unbiased article then it should contain all references. It should contain RS which blames the hindus and it should also contain the RS (if they exist) which blames the Muslims. There are numerous RS which are blaming the Muslim's and Mr Tahir Hussain. But according to the editors only RS's are those which are making the hindus guilty. Your words "religious strife and bigotry in India". See, this is what I am talking about. You are free to have opinions. Thats perfectly okay. I have mine. But have I told you to stop blaming the Hindus and start blaming the Muslims. That would be wrong. That would be violation if WP:NPOV. But because of your belief (your words not mine) you are assuming that the Muslim's were targeted by the hindus, hindus were the culprits. You are not allowing Mr. Tabir Hussain's name because he is a Muslim. Surely Mr. Hussain's name is not getting included not because he is not found guilty by an indian court, because then you wouldn't have included mr Kapil Mishra's name also. You are saying including Mr Hussain's name will violate WP:BLP but the same WP:BLP is not getting violated when including Mr. Kapil Mishra's name more than 30 times in the article. "religious strife and bigotry in India"- we respect your point of view. But as an editor it your responsibility not the push your POV in the article. Quanta127 (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You have made your decision. I see that it is closed now. Nothing to discuss here. Thank you. Quanta127 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not assuming anyone was targeted by anyone; this article reports what reliable sources state. If they have reported this event incorrectly, you need to take that up with them. No one's name is "not allowed" because of any religion, it is the Biographies of Living Persons policy. We can't suggest that people are guilty of crimes when they are not, especially when the only source is a police interrogation where it seems the subject did not have legal counsel present(who certainly would have advised him to not confess) and which said after the fact that he did not confess, and according to this is not admissible in court anyway. But it has caught like wildfire among those who think he is guilty. That's precisely why it is against policy to do it here. I don't see where it is suggested that the other person is in police custody charged with a crime. It is not illegal(I think) for Mishra to call for police action or to address protestors(if he did not do these things, again, take that up with the sources). 331dot (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@311dot My statement got distorted.

Have I ever said anything about the news reports being wrong?

Have I ever said Mr Hussain is guilty?

You cant find someone guilty based only on police record. Very true. News about Mr kapil mishra's speech is there all over the article. How? Surely because of allegations made against him. Does that make Mr Mishra guilty? Of course not. Then where are the allegations about Mr. Hussain? Surely allegations will not make him guilty? There is just one sentence about him in the entire article.

Mr. Mishras speech is mentioned everywhere in the article. Many references are suggesting that the speech was the trigger of the riot. But he is not been found guilty by an indian court. So although he is not found guilty by an indian court, still the article contains references which suggest that his speech started the riots. News about his speech is everywhere in the article. Then what the allegations about Mr Hussain? What about Mr Hussain's confession? Why is it not getting included in the article when reports of Mr Mishras speech is there all over the article? Why is that?

So basically allegations about Mr Kapil Mishra will be included in the article but allegations about Mr Hussain will not be included? News about allegations of involvement of Mr Mishra will be included but allegations about mr tahir hussain will not be included till the court order?

But most importantly the fact that Mr Hussain has made a confession is a truth. Meaning that is an actual event. May be police is distorting the facts. Maybe that is not at all mr Hussain's statement. And there are references about that also. But to hide an important event related to the riot in a wiki page about the riot is a pure violation of WP:NPOV. Add the event and add the counter arguments aslo. Like police distorting facts, he didn't have a legal counsel etc. There are references about that. But to block a particular event is totally biased. If those references are included, then that will indicate a different story than that projected by the current version of the article. That might be the reason behind this bias. Quanta127 (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a truth that Mr Hussain has made a confession, as has been pointed out his lawyers deny it. Drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think giving a speech is a crime in India, is it? I don't think you have offered any references(I could be mistaken), and those that have been offered by others are clearly inappropriate. Again, we are only summarizing what sources state. If you don't like what they say, you need to take that up with them. They have addresses and phone numbers so you can contact them and demand they retract what they have said. I don't have a dog in this dispute other than being saddened that people on each side of a dispute based in ancient religions are broadly demonizing the other side as groups instead of figuring out how to get along with each other. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, both sides have tried to fight for their "truth" here, its why we decided to avoid "local" sources. If ,Hindus, you get your truth why would not also put in Muslim truth?, so we go for what non Indian sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My absolute last statement before I get final warning. I agree with your POV. Can truth be hidden because it promotes communal harmony? I dont know. To my understanding some editors are trying to do that. Of course one community suffered the most in the riots. That I think is evident. Not only the riot. There are many other instances of the minority community suffering. But its a dangerous tendency to completely overlook the crimes commited by the minority because "it promotes communal harmony". If its a matter of communal harmony, then apply filters on both sides. Do not put extreme filters for one community and complete freedom to the other. Surely mr Hussain is enjoying his privileges because he belongs to the minority community. But Mr mishra has been made the culprit in this article (the references that are included. They are not wrong but where are references about Mr hussain? ). Maybe mr mishra is the culprit. Maybe court will find him guilty. But his name is there in the article more than 30 times while mr Hussain's name is there only once. No allegations about mr Hussain is mentioned in the article. I thought allegations can be included because allegations about mr mishra is there. Is it because if communal harmony?

I tried presenting my view point. But you don't agree with that. I understand. Quanta127 (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not what I said, I said both sides have a truth they went pushed, we have to tread the middle ground between those two "truths". As to Mr Mishra, he is there because no partisan RS have mentioned him. If you think he is given too much coverage start a new section arguing for the amount of coverage he gets to be reduced, rather then asking us to violate BLP and crime to create a false balance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Change "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" to "caused chiefly due to differences between two different sections"Kunal1607 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC). Kunal1607 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The current text is supported by citations to reliable sources. If you have alternate reliable sources to offer, please present them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are numerous reliable sources. I have tried multiple times to upload those references. But the editors are not allowing those references. By allowing only a few references and then saying that is the text is supported by citations to reliable resources is shameful. Totally biased article. Violation of WP:NPOV. The editors are saying the thise allegations have not been established by an indian court. For example Mr. Tahir Hussain's confession that the riot was pre planned and that he wanted to teach the hindus a lesson is not getting included in the article. There are no references regarding those events. The editors are simply not allowing to include those references. But there are numerous references which are blaming hindus, which are showing that hindus are the culprits behind the riot. So the current text is supported the references allowed by the editors. There are numerous valid references which sre showing the other side of the story, the the editors are not allowing thise references because of their POV. Quanta127 (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blaming a particular religion by including only one group of references and not allowing another group of references is disgusting because Wikipedia is not a personal blog to push someone's POV. Quanta127 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a violation of NPOV as we have tried to use truly neutral sources that belong to neither side, they are not even the same nationality. Ask yourself why only one sides sources are picking up most of these "facts"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven okay let's discuss about the "truly neutral" sources. Lets discuss the indian national news sources because many of the foreign media articles are actually personal opinions rather than actual news. These opinions have been shared as truly neutral sources. But lets focus on the national "truly neutral" sources. The same truly neutral sources have published articles which present the other side of the story. Same truly neutral sources have published articles which discusses Mr Tahir Hussain's involvement in the riot. The same "truly neutral" sources have uploaded videos which show mob throwing petrol bombs and arson from Mr. Tahir Hussain's terrace. Then please include those references which belong to the truly neutral category. Many known left leaning sources have also been included but right leaning sources have been kept at bay. Of course neither Mr Hussain nor Mr. Tahir has been found guilty by an indian court yet. But news about Mr kapil Mishra's involvement is all over the article. Good thing is that his counter argument is also there. But what about news about Mr Hussain's involvement. Because that is also news. That Mr. Hussain has acknowledged his involvement in the riot is a fact. It is a truth. That doesn't mean that Mr Hussain is guilty. Maybe delhi police is distorting facts. No one knows now. It will be after the court order. But that doesn't change that fact that Mr. Hussain has made a confession. Why this important event related to the riot has been hidden by the editors? An important event relating to the riot is not getting included in the article. People who will read the article will not even know that there was a confession. It is getting screened by the editors. Of course there are reports about the police distorting the facts. There are references about that also. Then include those also. Including this news of events does not make him guilty. But to hide a fact just because of personal POV is a definite violation of WP:POV. Whether its national or international, only one side of the story is included in the article. Even whole incidents and important events regarding the riots are hidden from this article about the delhi riots because these stories contradicts the introduction of the article that the hindus are the culprits.

I really don't understand the last sentence. Are you suggesting that only one group of news media is presenting the facts. If that is the case then that simply not true. Many news media are publishing both sides of the story. Quanta127 (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "That Mr. Hussain has acknowledged his involvement in the riot is a fact. It is a truth.". Actually, it is not, as I note above. His lawyer said he did not confess and at least one sources says any confession could not be used in court. Thus putting it in this article is a severe WP:BLP violation as others would read that and assume he is guilty. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Hussain's "confession" is not a fact, its an allegation denied by his lawyer, a fact that your sources have largely ignored. there is an implication form at least one source is just some random policeman who then went to the press with something he had heard,. rather then being a properly taken statement). This (maybe why) it not been really picked up outside India, because it is hearsay. And this is why we are dubious, to push what is (at best) an unsubstantiated allegation that violates two core polices (wP:blp and wp:crime) makes us suspicious of the rest of the claims.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already gotten an warning. Still ill say this one line. Allegations about Mr mishra are facts? Who verified those allegations? Why are they present in the page then? Quanta127 (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to ask the sources being used how they verified their information. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My god! Are they verified? Have they been proven in an indian court? So you think allegations about Mr mishra are verified information? So no court order is required now? I cant believe this. No wonder I got a warning. Articles about Mr tahir Hussain are not verified? When its mr Hussain we need court ruling and when it is Mr mishra all references are "verified" news articles? Then please include "verified" news articles about Mr Hussain involvement. Or rule will be different for Mr Hussain? Do not include the confession. But include other allegations which are "verified" By the news agencies. Quanta127 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are willfully ignoring what you have been told or don't understand it, but there clearly isn't any point in going around in circles on this. If you have proposed changes to this article with independent reliable sources to support them, please offer them. Otherwise, please move on from this. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything has to be proved in court, but criminal activity does. We cannot say or even suggest that someone is guilty of a crime before they are convicted of a crime in a court of law(ideally with a fair trial, but that isn't required). 331dot (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O::kay Quanta127 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, sorry to resucitate this messy thread, but that's an interesting point. In cases where reliable secondary sources feel that a trial isn't fair, have we had discussion as to inclusion (unsure if that applies here, but a general issue, perhaps)? BLPCRIME exists to prevent reputational damage that may be unwarranted. An unfair trial is by definition unwarranted, so I don't see how it could be perceived as acting as sufficient evidence to state someone's guilt when no trial wouldn't be. Has this been discussed before? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it crime come into play when we say someone has committed a crime. We do not say mishra committed a crime, not (as far as I can tell) has he denied saying these things (nor can I see where he denies his call for action provoked the riot). Now of course we could say (about Hussain) "He has been accused (by Indian media) of confessing to organising the riots, a claim he lawyer has denied", but really what does that add?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nosebagbear I don't know if that has been discussed or not. If someone is convicted as the result of an unfair trial, we can at least say they were convicted and if RS say the trial was unfair, that can be said as well. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

106.198.194.192 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC) I want to change some grammatic errors[reply]

Thank you, which ones?Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you want to re-open the edit request, set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Seagull123 Φ 15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

In the Aftermath section please provide link to existing page for Asaduddin Owaisi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaduddin_Owaisi

During a parliamentary debate over the riots on 11 March, Home Minister Amit Shah gave his condolences to the families of those who died due to the violence and assured them of justice. He went on to commend the Delhi Police for their efforts and blamed Muslim leaders and members of the Congress party for instigating the riots. Another BJP MP, Meenakshi Lekhi, accused ISIS elements of having organised the riots. Members of the opposition like Kapil Sibal, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Asaduddin Owaisi criticised the government for its lack of timely action.[194][232] 119.74.169.63 (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

we already link to his article in another section.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning the editing standard of not linking same item multiple times in an article. With same standard kindly remove link for Narendra Modi to maintain consistency in edit throughout article. "After three days of violence with 20 deaths, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, shared a message on Twitter asking people to maintain peace. Commentators said that he reacted only after the departure of President Trump, whom he had been hosting on a state visit while the riots began"

The article is completely misinformed.

The information presented in the 2020 Delhi riots page is completely skewed and should be allowed access to edit the same. If not, I would sincerely request the admins to verify the claims made within and make amends asap.

Thank you. Vickyathyd (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without giving us examples how can we comment on if you are correct? Of course if you are taking about the stuff we have already disused 15 times you have your answer.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Delhi_riots&oldid=974178400"