Talk:2020 Delhi riots

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

Role of Tahir Hussain

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

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

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

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

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

Ankit had joined the IB in 2017 and was posted as a driver in the MT department. His body was dumped in a drain by the rioters.(Redacted) Tahir Hussain and waris pathan role on this riots should be added. Tahir Hussain house used for throwing stones and petrol bombs. Evidences as per various interviews suggest 4 men were forcefully taken into his home 1 of them was ankit sharma. And later 3 dead bodies found. Ankit sharma's brother said he saw his brother taken away from his own eyes. This is totally hijacked page by propagandist ignoring facts. Sanwat (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Btw this happened recently

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

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

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

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

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

References

Proposal (Ankit Sharma/Tahir Hussain)

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

Ankit Sharma Murder

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Points 1, 2, 3: Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• So when we are adding the proposed text? Mohanabhil (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

WSJ quote:

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Tahir Hussain responses

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

Hindustan Times

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

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

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

References

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

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

Your comments are highly insensitive,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Varun2048, Aswin8, Anupam, My reverted edit can be seen here - I had added her name according to what Trojanishere had proposed (which can be seen further above). The 1Revert rule applies here now, so I request you or anyone else to add that back citing the references I had. Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

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

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

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

Aftermath

Have created a draft here on my sandbox. As pointed out, it has a few issues, but I am hoping that other editors can chip in and work on the cohesion.

Slatersteven, would like your inputs since you reverted my addition - I had covered a lot more than just the police's lack of action. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

true, but that addition made me doubt the rest as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

By the way, its consoled not condoled. There may be more grammatical errors.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, as per source, Replying to debate on Delhi riots in Lok Sabha, Amit Shah condoled the lives lost during the violence. Will still double check for any other grammatical errors. Any other concerns? SerChevalerie (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this an exact translation? Because if it is its very bad English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Why were the students arrested, for being at a railway station?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, have corrected the grammatical errors to the best of my abilities. However, do point out any other significant changes that you would like to be seen. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Before I start this, remove the comments about police actions during the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And remove anything else that discuses what people did, during the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, kindly list out what all changes you would like to see, instead of listing them out one by one. Have currently kept that line because the article doesn't mention that information. If you insist that it doesn't belong in the "aftermath" section, kindly point out where in the article it can be placed. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And you are free to edit in my sandbox. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made a start.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you cannot cite Firstpost, Hindustan Times, whatever other Indian sources you have cited. In the lead, only third-party international sources are the standard with a few allowances for obvious factual details for The Hindu, Indian Express, Calcutta Telegraph, and Statesman. That should be the standard in the main body as well; otherwise, people will stuff all sorts of stuff into the various sections and then arrogate the right to add them to the lead. So, please remove Indian sources. In fact, I would suggest: hold off on creating the section. Let the lead first firm up. There are plenty international sources. Nearly a month later, we don't need a blow by blow account. I oppose the creation of this at this time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, there is no such policy that Indian sources, especially ones from major newspapers, cannot be used on Wikipedia. Given that the riots took place in India, most of the coverage of the riots will come from that country itself. WP:RSN is the place to determine whether individual sources are reliable or not. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I second Anupam here. Besides, if the rest of the body (besides the lead) uses sources like Hindustan Times, why not this section? By that logic we have no almost no content in our article left except the lead. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I have vast experience in working on controversial South-Asia-related pages. The only ones that have some kind of stability are the ones that follow the general guidelines of Fowler&fowler's Lead section above. You can Wikilawyer this to death, accuse me of WP:Arrogance, WP:Mania, WP: Monomania, WP:Megalomania, etc etc. but that is the truth. It is your choice. Are you guys opposing me because you can't stand my guts or opposing me because I'm wrong. For I've seen nothing on the latter yet. I've seen the kind of gloriously unreliable POV you have added in the Hindu-Muslim brotherhood sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, if that's your stand then a whole rewrite of the article is due. And please, we didn't add any info in the Hindu-Muslim brotherhood sections. In any case, moving this discussion ahead, if you find the POV of any of the content I'm proposing to add in the "Aftermath" section is not up to the mark, then please point that out. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Kautilya3 has stated that he will be doing it. He is highly experienced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, noted. Now, about the POV of my proposal as part of this discussion? I'm willing to make changes as requested. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The first paragraph will need to go in its entirety. It is overly undue. The Ravi Shakar character is a charlatan who likes to make an appearance to publicize himself, not solve any problems. A few years ago he bent to existing environmental rules in Delh, had a large convention in a marsh, an important ecological niche, in the Jumna river. The marsh is still not recovered. I've already said this: These neighborhoods are poor. The Hindus and Muslims don't mix. They don't socialize, go to each others' houses for a meal. After Ramzan, a few Muslims send savvian (sweet vermicelli noodles) to some Hindu friends; on Bakrid if the Muslims are absolutely sure their Hindu friends are meat-eaters, they send a cut of meat (goat), always uncooked. Do you seriously think after being brutalized in such a horrendous fashion with 3/4 deaths Muslim, they would be going to an "interfaith" meeting?! It was probably some rescue opportunists from everywhere else but the neighborhoods. Also, we can't make summary style a list of events. I learned this from the two mainstays of the India page Nichalp and Saravask in 2007. You write a general sentence that gives a perspective on something (sourced to highly reliable sources), and then you may here and there add a vignette to illustrate the general principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

PS I apologize about the spelling errors. Somehow a spell checker is now a part of my editor and it is making idiotic changes such as marsh to march. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

PPS Also, if you look at videos of the Mustafabad camp. There are no Hindus there. It was organized by the Delhi government and Muslim Wakf board. All doctors and volunteers are from St Stephens Hospital (Anglican) and Holy Family hospital, and St Josephs Hosp Ghaziabad (both Catholic). There is 0.000 chance that people suffering from PTST would be trusting Hindus. The is the kind of interfaith collaboration (sans Hindus, for sure) that bears mentioning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

PPPS See here. See also the second infobox picture and its sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the highly inflammatory and political remarks by User:Fowler&fowler ("The Hindus and Muslims don't mix. They don't socialize, go to each others' houses for a meal.") are false. In normal day to day life in India, Hindus and Muslims live, work, and celebrate life with one another (see Exhibit A). Video footage from reliable sources proves that throughout the riots Hindus and Muslims demonstrated unity in many areas (see Exhibit B and Exhibit C). Wikipedia will absolutely not be used as a vehicle to promote communal viewpoints. Anupam^Talk 15:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we let others chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point to the disastrously unreliable POV that is being promoted here. Exhibit B above is about the neighborhood Noor e Ilahi. Maybe one lane in it was protected, but the neighborhood was very much vandalized. See here 1 and here 2, or here 3 I could easily produce three more. In any case that is not "Aftermath," only a lull in one lane. The aftermath is homeless Muslims, dead Muslims, traumatized (mostly Muslim) families; threats of corona virus in the camps. Missing Muslims for many more were killed. What sort of communalism are you accusing me of. Please have a Wikipedia-wide RfC and we'll see what sorts of sources line up on either side. Seriously. Let's do it and settle the matter once and for all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven: Please clarify. When you respond to Anupam by suggesting that we let others chime in, are you insinuating that Anupam should stop commenting? He has posted two substantive entries (not minor fixes) today—here and here. I find both of those observations incisive and on point. Whereas another editor, whom I shall not name out of a sense of decency, has commented four times as often during the same timeframe without your suggesting that he let others chime in. Do I detect a double standard? NedFausa (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also comment on content not users. If a user is acting up report them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, could you help me with sources for the same, specifically the bits on "The aftermath is homeless Muslims, dead Muslims, traumatized (mostly Muslim) families; threats of corona virus in the camps. Missing Muslims...". I am considering a rewrite of my proposed copy with your inputs. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie I will post the sources, all reliable ones, later today. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, thank you. Meanwhile, I have created a new draft in my sandbox, one that uses only "high-quality third party sources", as recommended by you. Slatersteven, pinging you since you were so kind as to correct the grammar for the old draft. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler and Slatersteven, did you manage to take a look at the new draft? It uses a chunk of the current lead (mildly rephrased). SerChevalerie (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Have added the heavily revised version using parts of the current lead to the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

And other stuff, only add what has been agreed and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, done as requested. Can we discuss the other points I had added? As per the suggestions of Fowler&fowler, I covered the condition of the people in the refugee camps and the uncertain future they faced (including the bit about coronavirus). In addition to this, I had also covered the following in the new draft:

1. Police complicity with rioters
2. Police using pressure tactics to prevent victims from reporting cases
3. Volunteer work in the relief camps
4. Parliamentary debate, with a fresh outlook

All of the above is sourced to independent third-party international sources, again as per Fowler&fowler's suggestion. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: I haven't taken a good look at your sandbox yet. Will do so later today. I note that the parliamentary debate bit does not all seem to be sourced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Fowler&fowler. Please note that the full paragraph on the parliamentary debate is sourced at the end. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You do not get to say "done as requested" unless you only do as requested. Yes we can discuss everything else, and you can add the rest when (and if) it is agreed you can add it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I have been listening to the suggestions offered by you and F&f, when offered. Let me make it clear that I was doing so in WP:GOODFAITH but have since learned better. Do let me know what you think about the additions of the proposed content. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

For a start why do we need an extended quote in a cite?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I never used to do it, but F&f's lead and the subsequent attempts of POV pushing in it made me realise that disruptive editing will be common here for a while. Keeping the quotes in the lead has worked out for the best, since we can quickly identify POV pushing and/or content disputes. I assure you that in the longer scheme of things, the quotes can go, but I found them necessary for now. In any case, most of the larger quotes and cites I've used in my draft are copied from the content from the lead. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits supported with inaccurate or insufficient edit summaries

Dear El_C, In the edit, with diff, in which he removes an edit of mine, NedFausa (talk · contribs) asks in the edit summary, " "fully" two-thirds is different from two-thirds how, exactly?" I am offering the reasons below, but may I request that these questions be asked first on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries when the editor in question is not sure about the edit. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• fully: The adverb "fully" is used to mean "the whole of; as much as," (OED, subscription only) or 1 : in a full manner : to a full degree : 2 : at least

• 1943 (OED) Triumphs of Engin. 115/2 It took fully ten years to get all this early work completed.
• 2015 (OED) Globe & Mail (Toronto) (Nexis) 1 Sept. a12 Fully two-thirds of the vehicles bore New Brunswick licence plates.
• <fully half the class> (Webster's)

• The expression has good precedence in publications of academic (university) publishers (presses).

• Somerset, Fiona (8 May 2014), Feeling Like Saints: Lollard Writings after Wyclif, Cornell University Press, pp. 194–, ISBN 978-0-8014-7098-1 Quote: "intentions of the translators who produced, in the course of several years of hard work, a translation of all of the bible's own words were it not for the fact that fully two thirds of the General Prologue to the Wycliffite Bible, chapters 3 through 11,"
• Otto, Hiltrud; Keller, Heidi (17 July 2014), Different Faces of Attachment: Cultural Variations on a Universal Human Need, Cambridge University Press, pp. 54–, ISBN 978-1-107-02774-9 Quote: " careful replication of Ainsworth's early work showed that 49% of the Bielefeld infants were anxious-avoidant, and fully two-thirds were not securely attached"
• Pharr, Susan J.; Putnam, Robert D. (5 June 2018), Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries?, Princeton University Press, pp. 9–, ISBN 978-0-691-18684-9 Quote: "In the late 1960s—at the very height of the Vietnam protests—an average of barely one-third of Americans endorsed these cynical views; by the early 1990s fully two-thirds of all Americans concurred."
• Scully, Pamela; Paton, Diana (4 October 2005), Gender and Slave Emancipation in the Atlantic World, Duke University Press, pp. 148–, ISBN 0-8223-8746-8 Quote: "plea of being married," and that fully two-thirds of St. Vincent females had given up working in the field, though Marshall comments that he probably meant two-thirds no longer worked regularly rather than rejecting all estate employment."
• Finally, it is used in encyclopedias. Pulitzer prize-winning academic Joseph J Ellis says in his Britannica article on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, "Sally Hemings had become pregnant only when Jefferson was present at Monticello, a significant revelation because he was away fully two-thirds of the time."

• I have used it because there are two sources (a) NY Times which says two-thirds of 53, and (b) Guardian which says three-fourths of 51 identified. It is one of those instances in which "fully two thirds" is appropriate, instead of "at least" which could mean more than 3/4's of 53 for which we do not have a warrant.

• I request that NedFausa self-revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In another edit, with diff, NedFausa has removed "conspicuously" from the construction "some Hindu leaders have taken to conspicuously parading alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims." with edit summary, "remove redundant word – such parading is by definition conspicuous." But my sentence was a paraphrase of the NY Times sentence, "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." But "trot out" (with meaning, "to bring forward (a person, an opinion, etc.) for or as for inspection or approval (OED)" is similar in meaning to "conspicuous" ( Obvious to the mental eye, plainly evident; attracting notice or attention." Parade on the other hand can have other meanings of "parade (v)", i.e. to march in a group, to make an ostentatious display," neither of which the alleged victims, who were presumably injured enough to be rendered less than agile, were reliably doing Rather, the meaning here is displaying (parading) in locations and manner for the injuries to be plainly evident. As before, this construction is used in 21st-century scholarly literature:

• Wyk, Ilana van; Posel, Deborah (1 May 2019), Conspicuous Consumption in Africa, New York University Press, pp. 157–, ISBN 978-1-77614-364-1 Quote: "By conspicuously parading in their finery, religious and political elites asserted their superior status."
• Erasmus, Desiderius (15 January 2015), Apophthegmata, University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, pp. 559–, ISBN 978-1-4426-2280-7 Quote: "When Socrates noticed that Antisthenes was rather conspicuously parading his torn and worn out garment he humorously took him to task, .."
• Crowdy, Terry (20 September 2012), Incomparable: Napoleon’s 9th Light Infantry Regiment, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 202–, ISBN 978-1-78200-183-6 Quote: "After conspicuously parading it in view of the other regiments the rumours of losing an eagle ceased. "
• Bergmann, Luke (22 September 2010), Getting Ghost: Two Young Lives and the Struggle for the Soul of an American City, University of Michigan Press, pp. 46–, ISBN 978-0-472-02640-1 Quote: "Opportunistic brokers were able to stoke this fear by selling houses in white neighborhoods to black families or conspicuously parading black home buyers in white neighborhoods."

• I request here too that NedFausa self-revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Both "fully two thirds" and "conspicuously parading" come off as editorializing and POV. What is the point of emphasizing that it amounts to 2/3rds beyond just saying it amounts to 2/3rds? As far as conspicuously parading, I would change both words. Even just "parading" has a certain tilt to it beyond stating bare facts. Just because academic publications do at times use POV or emphatic language does not mean an encyclopedia should in its own voice. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

What is "come of as?" To whom? To you? Or to some touchstone of the English language or its usage. I have just given you the OED and Webster's the two ultimate references for BE and Ame, and all you have is "come of as?" Besides, there are two sources. One says 2/3rds the other 3/4s. Such emphasis is entirely appropriate. I have given you an example from Britannica, written by a Pulitzer-prize winning academic. Would you like to go at with me one-on-one, referring to the best modern sources on usage and English syntax? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

PS ;Britannica

• Miocene Epoch Fully

half of the mammalian families known today are present in the Miocene record.

• Pluto's moons Charon, by far the largest, is fully half the size of Pluto. It revolves around Pluto—more accurately, the two bodies revolve around a common centre of mass
• Altitude On the average, fully half the water in the atmosphere lies below 0.25 km (about 0.2 mile), and satellite observations over the United States in April revealed
• Organized labour but even so, until World War II fully three-quarters of the active population was engaged in farming.
• Juno Beach (World War II) The first assault wave landed at 0755 hours, 10 minutes past H-Hour and fully three hours after the optimum rising tide.

There are dozens and dozens of other examples in Britannica. Just how much editorializing are they doing? I understand your points, and thanks for them, but ultimately we need some references to rely on. Anyway, I think I'm done with editing this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I'm not sure what you're asking me. But I'll venture to say that as long as the restrictions the page is subject to have not been violated, this is a content dispute that should be resolved in the usual way — through article talk page discussion, or if that reaches an impasse, pertinent dispute resolution requests. If you do find that Arbitration enforcement is necessary, I encourage you to submit a well-documented report at AE. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how much attention I can devote to this article, as a single admin, as I am rather busy on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) with the world-wide pandemic. El_C 00:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what to say. Obviously, I know the WP rules; but, equally, when someone keeps nipping at the heels of my edits (pretty much all content creation in the lead has been done by me) and has no reason to offer than personal preference, it begins to look like disruption. I am merely pointing that out. You will not find too many other examples of arguments supported by valued academic references, to which, nothing except personal like or dislike is offered as a counterpoint. Eventually, I will tire of this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is one last one. In a third edit, with this diff, and edit summary," "The violence meted out to Muslims is viewed to have been targeted" – could this writing possibly be more pretentious? ," changing my sentence to, "Muslims were targeted by violence." But as you will see:

• The expression "violence meted out to" is anything but pretentious, having been used in academic literature in the 21st century:

• See here.
• However, "were targeted by violence," is a hard to find expression, appearing in just one run-on sentence in an academic publication: see here. I request again that NedFausa self-revert. I will now bow out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

PS El_C.  :) I'd rather you work on the pandemic. That is more important. Thanks.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, thanks. Glad you understand. Still, I'm going to, hopefully, stir you both in the right direction with the following. Indeed, pretentious is not an acceptable descriptor. NedFausa, please stop with the battleground approach — I've already warned you to tone it down once before. Fowler&fowler, you have made missteps, too, as far as civility goes. Hopefully, that will be the end of that as far as both of you are concerned. These times, especially, call for goodwill and positive collaboration, despite everything. That said, as mentioned, if either of you contend that there has been disruptive or tendentious editing, I recommend making use of AE. Because the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, you have access to this superior forum where a well-documented report gets to be evaluated by a quorum of uninvolved admins. El_C 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C Thank you. All the best in your new endeavors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, please note that when you write an edit summary, "please, let's stick to what the cited source reports; Washington Post does not state "Evidence has arisen" – merely that witnesses said so, which would be testimony not evidence," as you did here, you are disregarding the confused, complex, process by which these edits appear. First, this is drafting by a committee with intervening reverts, which have typically involved mangling the text; second, the sources themselves are constantly updated in their online versions. To be sure, the WaPo text was not updated, but it was one part of two cited sources, one of which, from the NY Times, did say "Evidence has emerged," and had several bulleted items constituting said evidence, only one of which were the videos. So, "Witnesses ..." is entirely appropriate for the second sentence, and thank you for that; but for the first, "Evidence has arisen ..." is appropriate as well. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

New Tweet calling upon people to edit the article

[9]"Give me a tweet, Vasily @1TweetOnlyPlz@UnSubtleDesi Still interested in correcting Wikipedia's article on the 2020 Delhi Riots? Administrators removed page protection. Now anyone can edit. The only restriction is one revert per day." Not a good idea as we can always reprotect it. There was another tweet, now deleted, calling people to this page. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I would ask for PP to be reinstalled.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It will be if there is a problem. Meanwhile I've been sent the tweet I couldn't see: "©Give me a tweet, Vasily@1TweetOnlyPlzReplying to @SolankiChiteri and @DeepikaBhardwaj Wikipedia's associated Talk page is not locked. You are welcome to discuss improvements to the 2020 Delhi Riots article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020..." Doug Weller talk 12:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And here I thought we were beyond the disruption. I'm still watching this page and will keep an eye out. Thanks for the heads up — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert during inuse and explanation

Anupam (talk · contribs) I still have the "inuse" sign in place. Please let me finish my edits before you revert them; I request that you self-revert. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for a link of socio-cultural good intentions, Hindu-Muslim unity to appear at the very end of the lead with half a dozen citations, not all reliable. The Sikhs and Hindus who rescued some besieged Muslims did not demonstrate socio-cultural good intentions, they did so for reasons that are too early to analyze. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The edits to the lead are now finished. I believe the lead is in a good place right now. It sums up the events from the perspective of a month later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the lead finished?

Wikipedia's Manual of Style advises: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. [Emphasis added.] ... As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

Today the editor who wrote most of the lead declared: "The edits to the lead are now finished." Note he doesn't say, "My edits to the lead are now finished." No, he has seemingly slammed the door on everyone who in good faith would like to improve the page's principal element.

Despite his pronouncement, the lead is too long. It consists of six paragraphs, not four, composed of 700 densely packed words that do not provide a concise overview. I respectfully commend editors to Wikipedia's article Concision, which discusses using only the words necessary to convey an idea. Please, let's strive for brevity not bravura in our lead. NedFausa (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I support more work on the lead. Trimming to 4 paragraphs would be good. Right now it reads more like an in depth timeline which is not the right approach. Some elements also seem repetitive. I do get a bit of a WP:OWNy sense from F&F and I hope he will not obstruct further work here, should consensus support it. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not start new threads when no consensus was reached about trimming the first time, including in the comment by an admin. See Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_8#Fowler&fowler's_lead. Again, the lead is being used to write the rest of the article, starting with the Aftermath section by SerChevalerie. This has been the precedent and pattern followed in all highly-trafficked India-related articles for upward of 13 years. If you dispute this, please have an RfC at WT:INDIA, failing which take it to a higher Wikipedia forum of your choice. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The rules about the lead are not etched in stone. Please read Today's Featured Article, Introduction to viruses. The lead has five paragraphs and 505 words. For an article of 3962 words that constitutes 12.72%. This article has a lead of 700 words with a total article size of 5512 words. That is 12.69%. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the lead to four thematic paragraphs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Changing the lead from six to four paragraphs simply by joining paragraphs without reducing word count by even one is smoke and mirrors. The lead remains overlong. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

How so? Please make a post at today's Featured Article on WP Main page, per my post above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You're now engaged in Whataboutism. I said the lead of 2020 Delhi riots is overlong, to which you retort What about Today's Featured Article! You seemingly missed it, but DIYeditor shared here today his "bit of a WP:OWNy sense from F&F." That policy states: No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Please let other editors weigh in on the question I posed: Is the lead finished? NedFausa (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN carefully. It also says,

"In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If the behaviour continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.

Thus far I am the one who has been citing citing chapter and verse of English usage and syntax on the Talk page, with no response than personal dislike, accusations of ownership, or of a smoke and mirrors show. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

As it is the lead we are talking about, and I am the primary contributor to the lead, please do bear WP policy in mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead needs work. It's a strange combination of being well-written but badly-composed. It doesn't matter what WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. The lead should serve as an overview of the body of the article. In its current state, it doesn't. It includes details that are not even described in the body (chants, for example). These things need to be excised and moved to the body, sentence by sentence, until the lead adequately summarizes the body without introducing extraneous information. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Please read Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_8#Fowler&fowler's_lead carefully. Again: the lead is not a summary yet of article content. It has been written and stabilized (in DUE and reliable sourcing) to serve as a template for the rewriting of the article's main body. It is the main body that is mostly nonsense, the result of compromises of the moment achieved with 1RR dangling. This approach, the reverse of usual WP pieties, is a longstanding one followed in highly trafficked POV-ridden pages on South Asian topics. I've restored the first paragraph in the lead to its previous more coherent state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I already had read it. Nothing there convinces me that you are taking the right approach. What we have now is a lead section that has little or no relationship with the body, and the current lead includes many unnecessary details that give the impression of being there for no other reason than to make a point. Instead of mangling a high-traffic article like this, the correct approach would have been first to remove undue-weight claims in the lead, then bit by bit fix the body and the lead at the same time. What's being done now in main space should be done instead in a sub-page or draft space, and then presented to the community to evaluate whether it's an improvement. That practice does have long-standing precedent. I recommend you continue working in a sub-page after reverting your changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

What you are proposing does not work. These are old fault lines we are talking about, the junctures of dislocation of perspectives, that have not filled up in the 70 years since India's independence. The FA India was written in such fashion, in the public square as it were, in sight, and in the sights, of everyone. Indeed that openness was a prerequisite. I would know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

What I am proposing are two things. Take your pick: (1) Revert back to when the lead was more representative of the body (or use the "Overview" section in there now as the lead) and make incremental improvements to both, or (2) Work on an improved version in your own space to propose to the community.

Either of those practices have long-standing precedent. What you are doing does not; it is disruptive to the stability of the article, as you have observed yourself. Given the instability in the article now, partly caused by your own edits, reverts, and self-reverts, option 2 seems to be the best way forward. You're doing good work; you just need a stable place to do it in. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: It is not for you to offer me anything. Please revert the article back to before I began to edit it. Here is the state it was in, before I was requested by others to edit, before my presence was welcomed by some admins, its lead irredeemably representative of main body content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

My intention all along was to work only on the lead in order for others to rewrite the main body. It is now there in the record, in one place; this I had forgotten. The fact that the lead currently represents content that is UNDUE, whose implicit bias is very likely unknown to the editors of the moment who have appeared to edit it, citing Wikipedia's platitudes of "anyone can it," is irrelevant to me. Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

While I'm at it, let me also commend the editors of knowledge and courage such as Kautilya3, DBigXRay, SerChevalerie who attempted to keep the content unbiased, at the risk, and in one instance at the expense, of getting outed, and especially Banswalhemant who at considerable risk to life and limb went to the neighborhoods (about which others are now propounding theories of composition so conveniently) to take the excellent pictures. Thank you all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tense and wording in statements sourced to March 12

Fowler&fowler prefers:

Although the violence has abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders have taken to parading alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims.

I prefer something like:

As of early March, although the violence had abated in the densely-populated mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders had taken to parading alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims.

While present perfect tense can be used to state things that happened at an unspecified time in the past, to me, although I will readily admit I am not an expert in grammar, saying "have taken to" implies that it is ongoing, which we do not have a source for.

As to "thickly-settled" I would prefer "densely-populated" which is a much more common phrase. "Thickly-settled" seems a bit quirky and seems to be most commonly used as a Massachusetts road sign.

—DIYeditor (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: The Economist story was written on 13 March 2020. It says, "The religiously mixed and extremely crowded neighbourhoods in northeastern Delhi that were on fire in late February have cooled." It was paraphrased as, "Although the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi by 12 March ..." (in the pattern of manner, place, and time) What specificity are you looking for in the source? You have already made one grammatical error that I had to correct with a present perfect. (Again: I don't prefer it. It was a fix for the previous grammatical error introduced by you). Now you've added a viewpoint adverbial before a dependent clause. "As of early March, although ..." I have no idea what you are attempting to do. Please tell me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Please also note widespread use of "thickly-settled" in academic publications in the 21st century with no reference to Massachusetts. You are attempting to change something in place. You have to add the coherent and cogent argument. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have made it quite clear what I am trying to do, don't be obtuse. It was not phrased as "Although the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi by 12 March" that was my phrasing which I was in the process of refining, it had been phrased as "Although the violence has abated ... some Hindu leaders have taken to". Which, again, correct me if I am wrong, implies it is ongoing, which is unsourced and misleading. Also it was sourced to the New York Times not the Economist, and the date of the article was March 12. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Do any RS say they have stopped doing this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Bigger question is do any say they have not, because if we say "have taken to" we are implying they have not stopped, as far as I understand English, which I'm sure F&f will correct. We can say that as of the publication of our source something is true, not afterward. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I wrote that on 13 March 2020. See diff The present perfect was entirely appropriate. It has since been edited, rephrased, docked, expanded dozens of times. Please don't mischaracterize my edits by saying, "I prefer ..." Please don't. Please also don't use "obtuse" as a descriptor of my cognitive ability, sensitivity, or motivation. There are several ways to finesse the statement without resorting to the errors you had introduced. You could have posted here in the first place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Always a bit thorny. We are not a newspaper and should always write in the past tense (after all eventually something will finish). The problem here is that this is a very contentious topic with a fair amount of POV pushing. Thus I can see why we need to be very careful to be seen to not be taking sides.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to post to the talk page about every small edit. The tense no longer made sense, and I would say never makes sense for an article in the manner it was employed because of this very problem. As soon as it's written it becomes outdated. Let's talk about how to finesse the phrasing; that's what I'm here for. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

How about, "After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders continued to conspicuously exhibit Hindus whom they claimed were victims of Muslim violence, attempting thereby to reshape the accounting of events, but also in the process inflaming hostility towards Muslims?" NYT phrasing is of 13 March is: "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." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with DIYeditor that "parade" is POV here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Counter (WP:CLAIM): "After the violence had abated in the densely-populated mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders continued to conspicuously exhibit Hindu casualties, attempting to reshape the accounting of events in a pro-Hindu light, but also in the process inflaming hostility towards Muslims." The quote from the source does not explicitly say the leaders claimed the Hindus were victims of Muslim violence although one might draw that inference, nor does the source cast doubt on whether these Hindus were injured by Muslims. I still feel that "thickly-settled" is a bit quirky compared to "densely-populated"; why avoid the more common way of phrasing it? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree about Hindu casualty. Good point. I don't see a case for "densely populated," even if I agree to remove "thickly settled," and I do not. The tenements consist of back-to-back, side-to-side houses of small footprint, resettled villages, villages built upon after the villagers sold their properties for good money; they are extremely crowded in population, construction. The lanes are crowded with pedestrians. Besides, "abate" is Anglo-Saxon, as are thickly and settled. Densely and populated are not; it makes for a jarring construction among other things. It is used all the time, see OED example of Winston Churchill, " The town of Coniston..was a tract of country about ten miles by ten, the most thickly settled portion of which was the village of Coniston, consisting of twelve houses." The main point, though, is that extremely crowded is different from densely populated. Pro-Hindu light" is POV in my view; it is implied; the NYT doesn't quite say that. How about, "After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders continued to conspicuously exhibit Hindu casualties, attempting to reshape the accounting of events, but also in the process inflaming hostility towards Muslims Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: You cannot remove or move a large part of the lead as you did in this edit. Please self-revert. There was no consensus on the talk page for this edit. It is not enough to post your claim and make an edit. The text had been in place for three weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, I support F&f's above claim. We haven't achieved consensus for this. Kindly self-revert. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)