Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

FAQ

Since this article is one of the articles that have been continuously targeted by OpIndia (RSP entry), 45.251.33.234 suggested in User talk:Newslinger § FAQs on all controversial Hinduism-related pages that we add an FAQ to the top of this talk page, similar to what is seen on the top of Talk:OpIndia and Talk:Jai Shri Ram. FAQs can be useful for addressing questions and arguments that are repeatedly raised despite having already been answered. Would an FAQ be helpful on this talk page?

(Note: FAQs are not visible on mobile versions of Wikipedia.) — Newslinger talk 06:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think on this article it would be a waste of effort. See all the pinned posts above on this Talk page, and then see the number of edit requests we get that say the same thing. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We need to find some way to stop having to answer the same question 15 times a week.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, Slatersteven, putting my personal opinions aside, you may go ahead with the FAQ. Even if new editors don't read them, we can easily point them to it, instead of reiterating the same things (now committed to memory). SerChevalerie (talk) 06:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Ex AAP MLA Tahir Hussain has admitted to Delhi Police for organising Delhi Riots

Please update article as Tahir Husain has admitted to his crime to Delhi Police in details. It should be added as below:

Tahir Hussain, suspended AAP Leader, one of the prime initial suspect has finally admitted his crime of organizing Delhi Riots. He took his pistol before the incident from Police station and gathered lot of acids, glass and other items for planning the riots. This was planned in sync with US President Donald Trump's visit to India. He gathered and planned to incite mob who were participating in anti-CAA.

Sources: https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075?pfrom=home-topscroll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"On 24 February 2020, at about 1:30 pm we started throwing stones," Tahir Hussain told police." the rioting started on the 23rd, this is why we should only use non Indian sources.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

We don't put summaries of police interrogations in articles. When and if this person is convicted in a court of law and not the court of public opinion, we can talk. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Au contraire, he said "On February 4, in Abu Fazal Enclave, I met Khalid Saifi for planning the riots. It was decided to provoke people sitting on the anti-CAA strike. Khalif Saifi said that something big has to be done at the time of Donald Trump's visit so that the government kneel". So he planned something violent around the time of the riots. While it does not confirm that he started it, the statement must be taken into consideration regarding his involvement in the riots. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Save that for his trial, not this article. Please read WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Which does not mean he planned THOSE riots. If he had started them he would have...acted first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

All I said was while it does not confirm that he started it, the statement must be taken into consideration regarding his involvement in the riots. If it is relevant (I am not sure whether it is), you may add it, or else you may not. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Please refer to § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) on how to incorporate this information into the article. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

If not to be mentioned in the lead article, what stops this content to be added in the Investigation section as this is part of investigation. Also what's with 331dot comment We don't put summaries of police interrogations in articles when we can obviously mention that these were part of Policy Interrogation. That's really kiddish and ignorant of a timeline part of investigation. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I could point to wp:blp which means we need really top line sources for this, or [wp:crime]] which means he has to be found guilty before we say he committed a crime. This would need to be very carefully worded to include, and so far no one has suggested a workable wording.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Did he have legal counsel during the interrogation? That would affect any interrogation. There isn't a workable way to say what is being claimed without suggesting he committed a crime. We will have to wait for him to be found guilty by a court of law, not the court of public opinion. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven It was decided to maintain rules on reliable sources though I would suggest to follow WP:reliable sources guidelines for benefit of everyone, still respecting consensus Tahir Hussain's confession is published by all leading media including those mentioned above. Wikipedia is not a place to publish only when verdict is out rather it presents key factual developments about any incident being published through WP:reliable sources. This is also not accusing Tahir Hussain as criminal as that is the job of court and every individual has their basic rights to be granted as innocent until proven guilty by court be it Tahir Hussain or Kapil Mishra. As mentioned by 331dot "We will have to wait for him to be found guilty by a court of law, not the court of public opinion." I don't think it stands ground as no one is accusing here Tahir Hussain nor we need to stop updating major progress on this event. When the verdict will be out then also if article is written in good faith with reliable sources then we don't need to change anything rather updating timeline associated with events.
My workable suggestion to add in is: "As per Delhi Police, in their interrogation, EX-AAP MLA Tahir Hussain has confessed that he master planned The Delhi Riots together with JNU Student Umar Khaled in a meeting held at Popular Front of India (PFI) Office located at Shaheen Bagh protest's site. He planned it to coincide with visiting of US President Donald Trump to India. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no way to say that he confessed to a crime without suggesting guilt. We also only have the police account of this confession; nothing from the alleged suspect or his lawyer(if he even had one). 331dot (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all. this is a BLP. Second, what's wrong in adding this to timeline saying something like this happened? We have all top local sources putting out this news. What do we need more? I understand this may not be part of lead but this news definitely deserves presence in the article. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 05:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLPCRIME, WP:RECENTISM and § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) before suggesting changes to this article. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This might give some clarity on the whole confession business. Newslaundry: The curious case of Tahir Hussain’s recycled ‘confession’ Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent developments

Need some non-biased editors to add information on recent developments and rewrite the lopsided lead section as well: [1] [2] [3]. The threads above are a joke; I guess the article will continue to conveniently skip vital facts related to the real perpetrator (He who must not be named). 117.206.88.12 (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, now this is a serious turning point in the case. But in any case we have to say that Tahir Hussain "has confessed", and not "is guilty" until the court gives its verdict, as per Wikipedia policy and common sense. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I note her confessed to starting something a day after the riots started.Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Chiefly Hindu attacking Muslims added in the lead even before investigation is concluded, but have to wait for investigation to complete for what Tahir Hussain himself is confused. This article is seriously a biased. Can someone moderate and unbiased edit the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mail2nith (talk • contribs) 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Moving the "lacerated genitals" sentence in the Lead section to the Main body

Move the sentence "Among the injuries recorded in one hospital were lacerated genitals." from the lead section to a context appropriate location in the main body.

This line is placed in the context of the previous sentence mentioning how Hindus made use of the fact that Muslims were not circumcised for targeting them. However the injury in question is from a stray bullet from police shooting on rioters and not a targeted attack by the mob on muslim individuals as is implied in the lead. Reference to the article where this singular instance is mentioned.

This sentence is not only used out of context (Refer request for consensus at #Concern about the "lacerated genitals" sentence in the Lead section) and prevents the lead from being WP:RELIABLE, it's not even mentioned in the Main section. Mystupidstory (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Mystupidstory:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: Neutral does not imply consensus to move the disputed sentence. Please establish a clear WP:CONSENSUS first. Further, establish consensus on where in the body it can be moved to. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Tahir Hussain (politician)

All the information that has been kept out of here due to WP:BLP issues has been added in this article. Have currently WP:PRODed it. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Moved to AfD now: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tahir_Hussain_(politician) SerChevalerie (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie:If all information regarding him is labeled as allegation, then would it be fine ?--User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 13:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

श्रीमान २००२, no, see WP:BLPCRIME. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: Thanks for taking time to reply. Your link mentions 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. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, 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. The second part for not being a public figure certainly does not concern him. I still don't see that it prohibits giving facts while saying all this is currently allegation. If you could please take out some time and explain me how phrases like Their friends and relatives alleged that they were tortured in custody, In Jaffrabad, a man, allegedly linked with the anti-CAA side, opened fire at the police, before being arrested days later in Uttar Pradesh and claims of masjid burning included while these matters are in court. --User:श्रीमान २००२ (User talk:श्रीमान २००२) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Because an allegation is not a fact, it is a supposition.Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

श्रीमान २००२, please see WP:BLP in detail. And in the last few cases you mentioned, we haven't used any names of people. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

Please change this "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." to caused planned plan by Tahir hussain because he has already confessed it ,police said that during the interrogation the now suspended AAP councillor revealed that he wanted to teach Hindus a lesson using his political power and money. He told police that he was the mastermind of the northeast Delhi riots. It added that he took help of an acquaintance, Khalid Saifi, on 8 January and met former JNU student leader Umar Khalid at the office of Popular Front of India, a Kerala-based radical organisation, in Shaheen Bagh.

The Delhi Police’s report noted that Hussain’s job was to collect acid, petrol, glass bottles and stones, which he stored on the rooftop of his house in Chand Bagh locality.

Saifi allegedly told him that another PFI member, Danish, was willing to provide financial assistance for the “war against Hindus”.

you can read this and other many article https://zeenews.india.com/india/tahir-hussain-confesses-masterminding-delhi-riots-with-ex-jnu-student-umar-khalid-khalid-saifi-says-wanted-to-teach-lesson-to-hindus-2300190.html 

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-planned-delhi-riots-with-2-pinjra-tod-members-others-cops-2258660 https://theprint.in/india/ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-confessed-he-planned-delhi-riots-police-says-in-report/473532/ Mrdevil143 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• To remove or change the phrasing, "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims," you need to provide that explicitly contradict it. We cannot do WP:SYNTHESIS from the information you have provided. See also the previous discussions about Tahir Hussain's confessions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

the article is very much biased , it only targeting hindus which is wrong totally

Mrdevil143 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)the delhi riots of 2020 is caused because of CAA many muslims does not know about it they are just being mislead by extremist , CAA has nothing to do with INDIAN muslims but they think is against them and that is why they were protesting and the way they started protesting is violence in west bengal and other cities , then after month they start protest without violence but blocking the roads which violates other citizens rights and services and then a bjp leader said to unblock the road so that services can continue but muslim leaders like tahir hussain and other already very angry on hindus and they had started planning for the riots and then he got the chance and reason and started violence and other side hindu extremist were also defending . a police officer who almost got every information about the plan of tahir and that is why tahir murdered him brutally. this article is totally misleading the topic i would suggest to revise the article cause now we have more information on this .

 Not done: @Mrdevil143: among other things, this article follows what reliable sources say, not the original research or opinions of editors. Thank you, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Totally false article

Riots were pre planned and funded. Investigators arrested people who planned and executed riots.

https://zeenews.india.com/india/tahir-hussain-confesses-masterminding-delhi-riots-with-ex-jnu-student-umar-khalid-khalid-saifi-says-wanted-to-teach-lesson-to-hindus-2300190.html Alpha2211 (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

See the upteen threads above.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrong Information in this page

AAP leader and muslims do Delhi violence Abhinav Bhatt 12:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theabhinavbhatt (talk • contribs)

See all the talk pages discussions above.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Theabhinavbhatt: did you read the talk page discussions above? Or the information boxes at the top of the page? Please do so, rather than making a duplicative comment. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

False News

This artical is spreading false news. Please go through genuine sources and validate. With updated news. Avinpedia (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

can you give an example?Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

The content currently available is completely biased and a part of political propaganda. Kindly present a more true and neutral view point. 182.69.56.185 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Kindly suggest specific changes you want to make, with citations to reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We present what neutral third party RS say, if you have an issue with what they say, we can do nothing about that.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Bangalore

Some people at Talk:2020 Bangalore riots have brought this article up and has itself become as contentious an article as this one albeit not to this degree, in any case it might be helpful if we got some eyes from here on there. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Listed at WP:NPOV/N

This article has been listed for its alleged violations of WP:NPOV at WP:NPOV/N § 2020 Delhi Riots. Editors may contribute to the discussion there. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Concern about the "lacerated genitals" sentence in the Lead section

no consensus to remove the content referencing genitals from the lead. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the edit requests made without consensus. In the second paragraph, there is a sentence "Among the injuries recorded in one hospital were lacerated genitals.", placed in the context of the previous sentence mentioning how Hindus made use of the fact that Muslims were not circumcised for targeting them. However the injury in question is from a stray bullet from police shooting on rioters and not a targeted attack by the mob on muslim individuals - as is clearly implied by the context and the wording used in the lead. The wording of "torn genitals" used in the original article was reworded as "lacerated" in the revision from Fowler&Fowler, despite the same revision having actually put in "damage to the genitals" (which was later on removed). Despite the singular instance of the case, genitals has been pluralized, which ended up implying that this was common throughout the riots - especially due to its presence in the lead section, and all the original context removed in the subsequent revisions. Reference to the only article I could find where such a thing had happened, written one month before Fowler&Fowler made the revision and multiple rephrasings of the same. Let me correct you on that, the two sources cited, talk about injuries reported at the hospital, not about any case in particular. Among the injuries recorded in one hospital were lacerated genitals. Granted, its position in the lead might imply otherwise, but see § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) to better understand F&f's intentions and the way to take this forward. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) 4 months on since this and the main body is quite fleshed out, but the lead still contains content not mentioned in the main body (#Consensus discussion to decide removal of the "lacerated genitals" sentence in the Lead section) and, arguably important events like the first instance of violence are not included. Mystupidstory (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Hi Mystupidstory, I took the liberty to move your comment here, since that thread is mainly there for archival purposes. I'll have to disagree, besides the "Aftermath" section (added by me) the entire article has not undergone any significant changes since then. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Fowler&Fowler mentions the lead has WP:RELIABILITY for locking edits, but that's incorrect since WP:CONTEXTMATTERS clearly says the "editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible". Considering all votes accepts that the context is incorrect and that the main body is stagnated as you say, shouldn't the edit be allowed? Quoting #Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) "as the lead is what people read first, and sometimes, they read no further: it is important for it to be comprehensive and neutral, especially when the rest of the article is not." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystupidstory (talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC) What are you trying to say? In any case, I think you have misunderstood WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which relates to choosing of sources. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC) That while adding additional content can be done to the lead section by Fowler&Fowler's (4 month old stagnated) plan, any modifications to the lead to maintain its reliability should be allowed. Like you said, WP:RSCONTEXT in WP:RS specifies very clearly that if there is a better source, it should be used instead. And the source I've put forward brings sufficient evidence that the out of context sentence (as agreed by all voters) is also making the lead section unreliable, disproving Fowler&Fowler's claim that the lead is infact WP:RELIABLE. Mystupidstory (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC) I really don't understand why any edit requests to the lead appears to be continously discouraged despite accepting that the sentence in question is (provocatively) used out-of-context (to emotionalize the lead), has no place in the lead as it's not even mentioned in the body and how important the lead is "as the lead is what people read first, and sometimes, they read no further" Mystupidstory (talk) 06:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC) That's because the article is still "under construction" and far from being perfect as a whole. The only good quality sections of it are the lead and the aftermath (if I may say so myself). The rest has instances of WP:RECENTISM and is sourced to rather poor sources. I'd suggest that if you want to actually improve the article you should start concentrating on the body. If that is at a near perfect stage then we can go ahead and rewrite the lead. But obviously that will take at least 6 months to a year, depending on how soon the actual convictions are made. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC) I do understand the lack of quality in the body, but not why that should prevent the lead from being edited. I mean if people do have the time to edit, why aren't they allowed to fix issues with it? You can deny edits which attempts to add content to the lead and allow only modifications for mistakes in the lead. But intentionally allowing incendiary content on the LEAD of an article as sensitive as this is, is not a neutral approach to make. Also since nobody has voted opposing the consensus, and the others have accepted the lead has a sentence whose out-of-context usage has the impact of emotionally impacting a reader to feel more support for one party, I think the edit should be accepted. Mystupidstory (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) It's not so much that the sentence is out of place that the whole article needs to be reworked, as I said. We need to trim the lead and move the content into the main body, so I guess you're on the right track there. But until such time that it is done in a proper fashion (i.e. WP:CONSENSUS) it remains like that. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC) I have no idea who is posting here and what they are saying. They are apparently unable to sign their name. Please read WP:Lead fixation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Discussion on the "lacerated genitals" sentence in the lead 08-August-2020: This is a WP:Consensus discussion, about the presence of an emotion inciting sentence given unnecessary importance in the lead section (despite the main body not even having a passing mention on it). For more details, see above #Concern about the "lacerated genitals" sentence in the Lead section. Agree Quoting #Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) "The lead is rewritten as a low-res/high-level version of the main body". The main body has never had any content related to this. Mystupidstory (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) (Conditional) - either we need to add it properly in the main body, or we should remove it from the lead. In either case we should be more firmly clarifying its circumstances (perhaps better suited to the body). I'm neutral on it remaining in the lead at all (that is, if there was a body mention and clarity). Nosebagbear (talk) 08:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Oppose Strong Oppose We do not remove text from an NPOV lead which is based on writing by journalists of some of the world's best-known newspapers. The Delhi riots were brutal. The sentence needs to be expanded and explicated (with the name of the hospital) in the main body, not removed from the lead. The AP story was carried by several newspapers around the world. The world over crimes of ethnic, religious, or other cruelties, are taken seriously. Bearing witness to such crimes cannot be negotiated away on the principle that it might be "emotion inciting." For the reality was far, far worse. Circumcision is an aspect of Islam that goes back to the Old Testament of the Bible. To brutalize people for that arouses horror. It was alluded to, for example, in an article in the Times of Israel, written by the Kenneth Jacobson, the Deputy National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. I'm on vacation, so this is all I can say here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Your reason appears to be emotionally written and out of context (like the line in question that you added). If you go through the article mentioned above, you'd see that the "torned genital" is from a riccochet bullet by Delhi Police on rioters. And not an act by rioters on Muslims like you're trying to imply once again. Mystupidstory (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Please don't shunt garbage. I have cited only to international newspapers, the best ones, which have bureaus in Delhi. I am the primary author of the FA India. I don't make mistakes like that. AGF in Wikipedia has limits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Do you agree that the placing that sentence in that context is incorrect considering the evidence I've brought to the table? That we could agree that the said "mutilation of genitals" is not one of the many more grievous horrors of this riot? I do believe taking that line away doesn't undermine the actual horrors a bit, and instead gives them more reliability in it's absence. Everyone makes mistakes and that's just fine. Getting to fix a mistake is the best part of making one. Mystupidstory (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Your so-called evidence is original research. The cases at the hospital don't have to be the same as that of the police. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC) I agree of that possibility but that both articles are mentioning an instance at the same hospital (Al-Hind hospital) and were written on the same date (28/02/20), diminishes it significantly. So shouldn't the article which was entirely about the instance be given more priority? But even otherwise, requesting to consider that even in the original reference, there is no information which would suggest the current context can be applied - ie that Hindu rioters intentionally mutilated genitals of Muslims. Neutral Its detail we do not need or adds anything really, but by the same token I am not sure the argument for exclusion is all that strong.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC) "gunshot wounds, crushed skulls, stabbings and torn genitals." gentiles is listed as separate from gunshot wounds.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Ensure that you're reading the article I have referred whose title is "Mustafabad man's genitals ripped apart in Delhi Police firing" Mystupidstory (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC) I was reading the article we use as a source.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Shouldn't an entire article focusing exclusively on the event be given more priority than a passing comment on an older source? Mystupidstory (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC) NO unless it says this was the only instance.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Could you find any other source on this? Because I couldn't. Furthermore, both the articles are mentioning an instance that happened at the same hospital and were written on the same day. Mystupidstory (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC) There is another source we use dated 4th March that says "men with damage to the genitals", note the use of the plural.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC) A french article had the sentence "men with damage to the genitals" in it? Let's keep WP:GOODFAITH and not translate an article and quote it or, nor make use of the grammar in a tanslated content to try and prove some point. As far as I could find, LeMonde hasn't released an english variant of the same, if so i'll withdraw this. But a google search with "men with damage to the genitals" would show that this wikipedia article is the only place in the internet where this phrase has been used WP:NOTDUMB Mystupidstory (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I did not translate it, I quote the quote we provide here in our article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC) But the 'source we use dated 4th March' does not 'says "men with damage to the genitals"'. Mystupidstory (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Mystupidstory, you are taking this discussion in circles at this point. Also, please learn to use a WP:SIGNATURE. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry but I fail to understand why making this change now is still being opposed, despite all the discussions appearing to point to the misleading context of the sentence. The only oppose to not make the change at all is from the original editor, and is based on his apparent belief that the accident was intentionally done to "brutalize people" - despite all available evidences pointing it to an accident. I thought the consensus should still be obtained because an editor saying "I don't make mistakes like that" shouldn't be sufficient in Wikipedia. Mystupidstory (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC) At this point, it would be really great if someone could summarise the consensus, SerChevalerie, so that we can wrap it up. Mystupidstory (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Mystupidstory, there is no consensus, at least not for removal or moving to the body. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC) WP:NOTCENSORED, but then again, this adds no real importance; brutalities are brutalities. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Brutalities are brutalities indeed, but considering it's not done by Hindu Rioters but was an accidental riccochet from the police on those rioters, don't you feel the context completely twisted the meaning? "Muslims were marked as targets for violence. In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised. Among the injuries recorded in one hospital were lacerated genitals". Mystupidstory (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Mystupidstory, you can see my comment above. Granted it may look wrong in context of the paragraph but that's how it is, and we need to eventually rewrite it when the entire case is closed. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC) At the very least, could I request for the protocols for how long the lead section of this wikipedia article will be locked and remain unreliable? If so, shouldn't the readers be informed of the same and the lead be marked caveat lector or something? Mystupidstory (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC) End of consensus discussion about editing the lead section. Mystupidstory (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Agree 2 (one conditional) Oppose 1 Neutral 2 So I am not sure there is consensus for removal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC) WP:CON: Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity, nor is it the result of a vote. Mystupidstory (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) WP:STONEWALLING: Consensus regarding a proposal is determined by evaluating the arguments made by all those participating Mystupidstory (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Discussion by the 1 person who opposed, the original editor of the content in question, appears to based on an incorrect belief (Fowler&fowler - "To brutalize people for that [Circumcision] arouses horror"), because there are no reports currently brought to discussion which clearly shows that anybody has had their genitals intentionally lacerated in this riot. The two referenced articles used by the editor has passing mention of the issue while another which is focused on the issue clearly points it to be an accident. Referring WP:CONTEXTMATTERS in WP:RELIABLE: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article". Mystupidstory (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) After considering the unreliability of the sources used, this unnecessary sentence (as commented by Slatersteven - "Its detail we do not need") is claiming in an incorrect context (as commented by SerChevalerie - "Granted it may look wrong in context of the paragraph") that some unknown Hindu person who participated in this riot, is guilty of a heinous violence. Referring WP:BURDEN: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". Mystupidstory (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC) Requesting an editor to take these into consideration and resummarize the consensus properly. Thanks for trying to help, but your attempt at achieving consensus by taking our statements out of context will not help. Please do this properly or don't do this at all. Further, we have made it clear that we are not going to remove the line completely: if it goes from the lead, it will go in the body, where it will be expanded further. But please stop with the WP:Lead fixation for now. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC) I've not asked for the removal of the sentence from the page, but moving the irrelevant sentence to a contextually appropriate location in the Main. Mystupidstory (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC) Infact, I'd like to make it clear that I truly believe this article's lead is already a prime example of WP:Lead fixation : "if an editor has a political or religious agenda, they will insist that their point appear in the intro, where it will get more attention, often neglecting whether the point is substantially relevant, or how it is covered in the article body." Mystupidstory (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC) References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2020

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

Change "North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed" to "North East Delhi riots apparently masterminded by Tahir Hussain were multiple waves of bloodshed".Sanathiyer95 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Sanathiyer95 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)  Not done Please see the numerous discussions above about this; we do not put conclusions or accusations drawn through police interrogations in articles. When this person is convicted in a court of law of a crime, then we can talk. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Then why kapil Mishra's name appears more than 20 times. He has been projected as the mail culprit behind the delhi riots. Has he been convicted by an indian court? Then remove kapil mishra's name also. Quanta127 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC) RS are what we use.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Mr Tahir Hussain has himself acknowledged that he instigated the riots. He "wanted to teach the Hindus a lesson". There are numerous references. About Mr. Tahir Hussain. I am not giving any references here because in the past I had given multiple authentic references, but none of them were included. I tried multiple times to show valid references. None were included. There are hundreds of reference supporting the other side of the story. There are hundreds of references mentioning Mr. Tahir Hussain's confession regarding the delhi riots. But but all references were termed as not authentic. This is shameful. Not even including valid references because thise are against the political or religious bias of the editors. This is not an Wikipedia article but a personal blog post. Quanta127 (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Please follow wp:npov This is Wikipedia. It should never have religiously biased articles. There maybe 90% references blaming one religion. Articles can be naturally biased because of references. But making an article biased by not including many authentic references is totally wrong and it violates wp:npov Quanta127 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Its not, its why were are trying to use non Indian sources, ones with less of a vested interest in the situation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Did Hussain have legal counsel during the interrogation? (I doubt it since they would have told him to not confess) 331dot (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Wow! @331dot. See this is what I am talking about. Did u see how baised your comment was. Hussain made a confession and now you want to verify whether if he had legal counsel of during the interrogation. Do u know he didn't have a legal counsel? Now lets talk about Kapil mishra. The article has made him the prime accused. He is the main culprit according to the article. How did u verify this? Was he found guilty by an indian court? This is amazing! Quanta127 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Because confessions can be retracted in court (or even rejected) if not collected according to statute. So until he is tried and convicted wp:crime comes into it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC) @Slatersteven I agree. But if u see clearly many indian references have been included which are talking about one side of the story. I am not telling that those references are wrong. The same news channels have published articles which shie the other side of the story. Those references are missing in the article. A confession is a confession. That should be included with proper references. Editors are not judges. If there is any reference which shows that the interrogation was not fare then that should be included. Now the editors can also disregard court ruling by saying that the "was the trial fare?" With all due respect you are not the judge. Plase include valid references to make the article fare. And if there are reports about unfair trail or unfair interrogation then include that too. But please, the editors should not become judges. Clearly for one particular community references are published without any verification. But for another community the references are getting denied on grounds of this or that argument. Quanta127 (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC) We are not saying he is guilty or not guilty, we are not saying anything. Thus we are not setting ourselves up as judges. We are in fact waiting on judge to pass judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC) @Slatersteven ok. I totally agree with you. Then please do not make kapil mishra the prime accused. Do not make him the chief conspirator of the riot. Maybe the court will find him as the main culprit of the riot. Remove his name from the header where the reason of the riots is mentioned as kapil mishra's speech. And if u are not removing kapil mishra's name then please include tahir Hussain's name also. Quanta127 (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC) I am not making any changes without a better reason then a confession that is [[4]] "admissible evidence in court because it was made in front of a police officer". Hussain’s lawyer Javed Ali said the police are manipulating facts. “Tahir Hussain has not admitted to anything with regard to Delhi riots cases.". So no its not a fact, its disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC) @Slatersteven sir, I am talking about Mr. Kapil Mishra. Has he been convicted by an Indian court? You are concerned about Mr. Tahir Hussein. Okay do not include his name. Do u know that he is the main culprit of the delhi riots. What about his rights? So Mr tahir Hussain has rights but mr Kapil mishra has no rights. And if an indian court finds Mr. Tahir Hussain guily and his lawer says the trial was not fair. Will u then include the judgement? Or will u say that the matter can go to a higher court.. So innocent until proven guilty. So. Okay do it include Mr tabir Hussain's name. But then remou mr kapil mishra's name as the main culprit of the riots. Let the india justice system decide on that. Quanta127 (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Have we accused him of anything? If someone is found guilty then we can include what they are guilty of (unless RS question the verdict, then we also include that).Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC) How can this article make Mr kapil mishra (a living human being) as the chief conspirator of a riot without any proof. When it comes to Mr. Tahir Hussain, you are saying innocent until proven guilty by an indian court. Then what about Mr. Kapil Mishra? In the heading section the reason of the riots is stated as the hate speech by Mr. Kapil mishra. Where is the logic here? If without any proof the article is making Mr. Kapil Mishra the main culprit of the riot and not even including mr tahir Hussain's name because he has not been found guilty by an indian court then I am sorry to say but this is a religiously biased article against a particular community. Quanta127 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC) We do not, in fact we do not say he was a conspirator.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC) "Have we accused him of anything?" Sir, did u see how many times his name appear on the site? In the header section his hate speech has been clearly mentioned as the reason behind the riot. His name appears almost 30 times. Okay then. I understand what u r trying to say. Then please include Mr. Tabir Hussain's name. Do not make him guilty of anything before the court ruling but please include his name with references, just like the case of Mr kapil misha. Quanta127 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC) We do include Hussain's name, and what he is charged with. Do we say "Mr kapil mishra was the chief conspirator" behind the riots, do we accuse him (not his speech) him of anything?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC) @Slatersteven My closing statement- I never said Tahir Hussain's name is not there in the article. I said his name appears only once. According to the editors, that is because he has not been proven guilty yet. So, we should not include even his own testimony, because that confession may later change in a court. Fair enough. The only line containing Tahir Hussain's name in the entire article is : "Tahir Hussain, who was an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) councillor, was arrested for allegedly murdering Sharma" Now let's compare this with Mr Kapil Mishra's name. He has not been proven guilty by an Indian court. Let's see the coverage of Mr Kapil Mishra's name in the Article. In the sidebar: " Caused by: Hate speech, provocation, confrontation, CAA Protests, mass mobilization, religious nationalism Goals: Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests, Ethnic and religious persecution " All the references have Mr. Kapil Mishra's name as the conspirator of the riot. Mr Tahir Hussain's name is nowhere to be found. The references of the sidebar section are blaming Hindus in general (e.g. Ethnic and religious persecution). "Kapil Mishra, called for Delhi Police to clear the roads, failing which he threatened to do so himself with help from his supporters" "Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra and his supporters reached a protest site at Maujpur Chowk "to give an answer to Jaffrabad [blockade]" "Some of them blamed Kapil Mishra for the riots" "surprised the court by admitting that they had not watched the video of the inflammatory speech given by Kapil Mishra" "The Court then played the video clip of Kapil Mishra's speech" "The bench expressed "anguish" over the inability of the Delhi Police to control the riots and its failure to file FIRs against four BJP leaders, Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Parvesh Verma and Abhay Verma for their hate speeches." "Delhi against jihadi violence. Kapil Mishra was seen at the rally" "After Mishra's ultimatum, violence erupted." I am not saying these references are wrong. I am just saying that there are numerous references for Mr. Mishra. He is a living human being, just like Mr. Tahir Hussain. Just like Mr. Hussain, he is also not proven guilty by an Indian court. Then where is Mr. Tahir Hussain's name? Why only one single line for him while Mr. Mishra's name appears approximately 30 times. There are detailed descriptions about his hate speech, his incitement of the rioters. there are many references indicating that he is the chief conspirator of the riot. Of course, there are valid references against Mr Hussain. But none are getting included. Mr. Tahir Hussain's name cannot be included without Micro-level verification but Mr. Mishra's name can be included at will? Even his own confession about "teaching the Hindus a lesson" cannot be included because he is not proven guilty by an Indian court. The entire header section blames Hindus for the riots. There is one line mentioning that Muslims also attacked Hindus. But the line mentions that the Muslims had valid reasons for the attack. "In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence; on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns." In simple language - violence by Muslims was justified. There is this line in the header section: "[the riot] caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." So, no verification is needed now? I am not requesting to remove this statement. But there are multiple references that state that it was pre-planned by Mr Hussain and many other co-conspirators? And that the riot was caused by Muslims attacking Hindus? Why are those references not getting included? So, without any court ruling, it got established in this article that the Hindus are the culprits. No court ruling is required this time? The best line is this: "Videos showed police acting in a coordinated manner against Muslims, on occasion purposefully helping Hindu gangs. Witnesses said some police officers joined the attacks on Muslims" Wow! Big acquisition. But surely no verification is required now. Is this a personal blog post? I am not against this statement either. But there is another side of the story. Why are those references not getting included? Every request to include Mr. Hussain's name or to include the other side of the story is getting denied by the editors. The editors are requiring micro-level verification to include any statement about Mr. Hussain. But the same editors are happily including numerous statements about Mr. Kapil Mishra or in general statements about Hindus. It is now clear that the other side of the story will not be included by the editors. Even if the Indian court finds Mr. Hussain guilty, then also it might not be included. It won't be included not because there aren't any valid references, but because of personal bias (wp:npov). I'm not sure how it is biased for me to ask legitimate questions as to if this man had legal counsel. I have zero interest in this case beyond being a Wikipedia editor. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2020 (UTC) @331dot, the question was legitimate. If legitimate question is asked for one particular community and no questions are asked for another community then it automatically becomes biased. Micro-level of verifications are required before including the name if Mr. Tahir Hussein. The main objections of the editors is "Mr. Hussain has not been found guilty by an indian court". But Mr. Mishra's name appears more than 30 times in the entire article. Has he been found guilty by an Indian court? There are many references which indicate that Mr. Mishra is the main culprit. What RS is followed when including Mr mishra's name? Not a single line can be found in the entire article which indicates the role of Mr. Hussain. There is only one line stating that he was arrested for the murder of an intelligence officer. Nothing else. There are numerous references which show that the riot was pre planned by Mr. Hussain and others (of course he has not been convicted by an indian court, just like mr kapil mishra), but the editors do not want to include those. The editors are making it impossible to upload any references about mr Hussain. Many difficult questions are asked before uploading even a single line about Mr Hussain. But any references about Mr kapil mishra's name is appearing without any problems. Mr Hussain is enjoying his religious privileges in this totally biased article. Quanta127 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

What kind of reply is this?

———————————————-

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

—————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We do not blame Hidoos, RS do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

I think the above threat means this page may need full protection for a bit.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

You write to them and demand they correct their lies. As to your links, I see no links in your edits.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alpha2211 Please be aware of the no legal threats policy. While no one here can stop you from exercising any legal rights you have in your country, you cannot make legal threats here on Wikipedia. If you do initiate a legal action or otherwise involve the authorities, you will have to be blocked until the legal action is concluded. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Its policy its called wp:rs, and wp:crime, and wp:blp (after all the accused's lawyers denied he confessed). We go with what RS say, and even if the riot was panned it does not mean the main rioters were no Hindus, after all I can start a fight and you and 15 of your mates can join in and me the main culprits.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alpha2211 As noted, if you disagree with what reliable sources say, you need to take that up with them them. There isn't really more to say about it. I invite you to edit any of the other six million plus articles that Wikipedia has. 331dot (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

Muslims with “ lacerated genitals “ is put prominently

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

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

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

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

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

Alpha2211 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Ankit Sharma hidden, whilst not named we mention him in the third line of the lede, that is not "hidden".Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Alpha2211 You need to speak to the sources that report what we are summarizing. If you do not move on from this matter, you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Lets not warn users here.Slatersteven (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@311dot My statement got distorted.

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

Have I ever said Mr Hussain is guilty?

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

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

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

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

No it is not a truth that Mr Hussain has made a confession, as has been pointed out his lawyers deny it. Drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think giving a speech is a crime in India, is it? I don't think you have offered any references(I could be mistaken), and those that have been offered by others are clearly inappropriate. Again, we are only summarizing what sources state. If you don't like what they say, you need to take that up with them. They have addresses and phone numbers so you can contact them and demand they retract what they have said. I don't have a dog in this dispute other than being saddened that people on each side of a dispute based in ancient religions are broadly demonizing the other side as groups instead of figuring out how to get along with each other. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

To add to the above, both sides have tried to fight for their "truth" here, its why we decided to avoid "local" sources. If ,Hindus, you get your truth why would not also put in Muslim truth?, so we go for what non Indian sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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