Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Caused "cheifly by Hindu" mobs attacking muslims

None of the attached references have any such quote. First reference for this sentence states it in the form of "question arises", the article published in NYTimes is speculative and not assertive of any such 'fact'. None of the quotes from the citations match this assertion. There is no primary source for this statement whatsoever. Since, Tahir Hussain apparently cannot even be discussed in the article pending the trial in the court of law, what makes this accusation fit to be put in the introduction? Vidit Bhosale (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The first source for that line makes that claim. It doesn't suggest specific persons committed a crime, so it is not a BLP violation. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No, it absolutely doesn't make any claims of the riot being "chiefly" caused by hindu mobs. The article merely reports on the occasions where hindu mobs allegedly attacked muslims. In the later section, where the authors talk about "... this raises the question... which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" it no where states that the riots were "caused" by hindu mobs attacking muslims. Causation and events after the start of the riot are two distinct things. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we do here on Wikipedia, report on what reliable sources state. The one source says "Since the riots broke out in Delhi at the end of February, the worst religious conflict to engulf the capital in decades, questions have persisted about the role that the Delhi police played in enabling the violence, which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." If you disagree with the conclusion of those sources, you need to take that up with the sources, and/or offer your own reliable sources that assign blame to some other group. Over the course of this article, of which there is an extensive history of persons making this sort of request(feel free to examine the talk page archive), we have found that most Indian media has too much of a dog in the fight for either side, so we have tended to use media foreign to India. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Having vested interest in the matter is not for any of the individuals to decide, atleast that is what wikipedia itself prescribes. Secondly, that is not something I put on debate anyway. "Questions have been raised" is a weasel argument at worst and an allegation at best. Passing that as a matter of fact in the introductory lines of a religious riot isn't objectively correct. Especially when subjective terms like "chiefly caused" are being used. I'm reiterating the very thing I said before, none of the articles say the riot was "chiefly CAUSED" by Hindu mobs. This implies that the riot started with hindu mobs attacking muslims without any prior reasons. I do not have a problem with the statement "hindu mobs attacking muslims" since that goes both ways. The primary problem is that statement veing passed of as causing-factor of the riot. that claim is unsubstantiated. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The "questions" line refers to the role of the police in the riots, not the riots in general. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly my point. What is the basis for "chiefly caused by hindu mobs...." statement? It us objectively unfounded and unsubstantiated with evidence. The articles marked as references for that statement do not say hindu mobs chiefly "caused" the riots. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You will have to ask The Guardian what the basis of their reporting is if the article does not make that clear to you. We are just saying what they say. Per WP:RSP The Guardian is generally considered to be reliable and does not have a reputation for making things up out of whole cloth. You are not the first person on this page to disagree with what they say- and it is your right to do so- but no other reliable sources have been offered as far as I am aware. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It is frustrating to see that my initial point is being blindsided. I have no problem with what the Guardian says. All I'm saying is, the Guardian doesn't say what it is being referenced to in the wikipedia article, to be precise, the statement that "chiefly caused by hindu mobs attacking muslims" with emphasis on "chiefly caused". The Guardian reports that these events, the mobs attacks took place in the events which are collectively being called the Delhi Riots, but nowhere does it attribute any such events to have "caused" the riots. Either provide a source which says the riots were *caused* chiefly by hindu mobs attacking muslims or correct the statement to something on the lines of "the riots involved hindu mobs attacking muslims" at the very least. Vidit Bhosale (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

In reading the cited article I don't see how any other conclusion can be reached. If there is some other cause or some other group that is responsible, please offer sources. Maybe others who follow this page will feel differently. 331dot (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

From the Guardian link, "Since the riots broke out in Delhi at the end of February, the worst religious conflict to engulf the capital in decades, questions have persisted about the role that the Delhi police played in enabling the violence, which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims. Of the 51 people who died, at least three-quarters were Muslim, and many Muslims are still missing." Would it work if we change it from "chiefly" to "predominantly"? Vikram Vincent 13:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

We are allowed to reasonably paraphrase, Chiefly, predominantly, the majority all mean more or less the same. BUt change it by all means.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm okay with this change. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No reason to keep dickering about inconsequentials. I'm with Slatersteven on this. It is a very reasonable paraphrase, and it has been in the article for over a year. I've already quoted the OED on this before, I think; anyway, here it is again: "predominately = predominantly = In a predominant manner; to a predominant degree; (in later use) esp. primarily, largely, chiefly, for the most part." We don't want a close paraphrase. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Paraphrasing bias in Timeline/24th_February

In the subsection 24th February, "pro-CAA mob arrived ..... ..... anti-CAA protesters" The cited source at the end of the statement refers to both the elements as either 'protestors' (in the subheading) or 'groups' (in the first and second paragraph) with 'pro-CAA' and 'anti-CAA'. However, the wikipedia article refers to one element as 'mob' while other one as as 'protesters', a sign of editorial bias since mobs-protesters invoke a offender-victim imagery. Proposing to either change the phrase 'pro-CAA mob' to 'pro-CAA protesters' or 'anti-CAA protesters' and 'pro-CAA mob' both to 'groups' (with respective suffixes i.e 'pro-CAA' and 'anti-CAA')

Source i.e "this article". quotes Subheading: "Protests related to the CAA took a violent turn on Monday in Maujpur and Jaffrabad areas of Delhi after pro and anti-CAA protesters clashed. Violence continued on Tuesday. A look at what happened in northeast Delhi." Paragraph 2: "Police fired tear gas shells and also resorted to lathicharge as clashes broke out between pro and anti-CAA groups at Jaffrabad, Maujpur, Chandbagh, Khureji Khas and Bhajanpura." Vidit Bhosale (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure what your second point is asking.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

hatting nonsensical screed

A masterpiece in WP:UNDUE WP:NOTNEWS This entire page is in blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE If you think otherwise, engage in a civil discussion and then take a call on whether this section should stay or it should be removed. Editors- please refrain from Abusing your powers to take decisions unilaterally. This has been discussed to death, please review the archives. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and they state what appears here. A destructive riot certainly merits an article. It will not be whitewashed. But if you wish to provide a continuing education to us in religious intolerance and bigotry in India, then do so. 331dot (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP

Burningfire22, other editors are objecting to your edits on good-faith BLP grounds. Please build consensus here instead of edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I encourage you to self-revert as a sign that you are in general against edit-warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I jumped the gun, I have self-reverted so they can.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The current article says that the "Hindu Mob" is responsible for the Delhi riots. Are you taking responsibility for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningfire22 (talk • contribs)

Burningfire22 the search function is your friend. Also WP:SIGN your comments. [1] YODADICAE👽 15:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I am taking responsibilty for saying what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

If you care to go through the talk page archive you will see with have disccued theis at length.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The user is partially blocked and cannot self-revert. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am now aware of that, my comment was posted before the block. I suggest we put this discussion on hold until they can respond.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

They can still respond here. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

june 21

14 mosques burned https://scroll.in/article/955713/in-photos-fifteen-muslim-shrines-in-delhi-that-were-burnt-by-hindutva-vigilantes-in-three-days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiq2003 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I am unsure of this is an RS, even do what do you want us to do?Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

change

The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February 2020 and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.[12][13] Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows, or set on fire.[14][15][16] The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted.[15] More than a week after the violence had ended, hundreds of wounded were languishing in inadequately staffed medical facilities and corpses were being found in open drains.[17] By mid-March many Muslims had remained missing.[12]

to

The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi beginning on the eve of February 23, riots broke out in Northeast Delhi between Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and pro-CAA protestors. The violence took a communal turn and led to the death of over 53 people over the course of the next 10 days. More than 200 were left injured. Shops and houses were burnt down and even places of worship were attacked. Burningfire22 (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done This proposal removes sourced information. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Reference 12 and 13 are written by NYT and Guardian respectively which are foreign media with no proper reporters on ground in India and there has been umpteenth controversial topics published by them. Please refer to mainstream media of leading reputed news agencies in India eg. NDTV, TimesNow, TOI, IndiaToday, CNN News18 and you won't find a single article supporting this article narratives and it appears biased. When I browse through archives this topics is repeatedly brought out.

Which is why they are good sources, they have no eggs in this basket.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What source article are you referring to, some random article written by random people on random websites and you call them source?

I can reference many articles from the internet which say the opposite of what is mentioned on the Wikipedia page. How do you decide which source is right? or wrong?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningfire22 (talk • contribs)

No mention of (redacted) Tahir Hussain

Tahir Hussain was the mastermind of the whole riots but there is no mention, also I can't edit this page, this page is fully biased. Can someone help to edit?? King20012001 (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Has he been convicted yet of being the main mastermind?Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• Slatersteven This case is sub-judicial and in that perspective no Hindu mob has been found by agencies as per reliable sources so the headline should also be changed from mostly hindu mob attacking muslims. We need to maintain uniform standard based on WP:RS. Thanks!

And we do mention him.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• King20012001 We cannot respond to a general complaint. After first reviewing the archives(as this has been discussed to death) and the Biographies of Living Persons policy, please identify specific passages where the provided independent reliable sources are not summarized accurately. In order for someone to be called the "mastermind" on Wikipedia, they must be convicted in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I have redacted the header. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

And it's been added again, badly. I am at 1RR, but this may well be a bLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

BLP (again)

Is the wire a valid source for BLP claims, as fact?Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

RAGINI TIWARI AND KAPIL MISHRA

HEY! WHY ARE YOU REVERTING MY EDITS? I PROVIDED VERIFIED SOURCES.

Firstly see wp:npa, secondly you made a case here you do not edit war (also do not shout, it does not make your case stronger).

Now to address your point. There may be issues with wp:blp in that (so far) no one has been prosecuted, only charged. In addition, some of it is in the wrong place (he was not charged on the 23rd or even arrested then). Also, it is very poorly written (has he entered a plea, if so what is it?). IN addition (see above) I am unsure that the wire.in is an acceptable source for BLP claims (at best it needs heavy rewording, and frankly I think removal).Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted; the reasons given are valid. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

We're discussing the addition of these two images with captions:

• File:Kapil Mishra.jpg - A report and one plea to the Supreme Court of India was filed against BJP leader Kapil Mishra for allegedly making inflammatory remarks publicly, inciting people and causing the violence. Source: ThePrint at https://theprint.in/india/who-is-kapil-mishra-bjp-leader-being-blamed-for-delhi-riots-had-once-called-modi-isi-agent/371226/
• File:E9f4bce479261eca26bbb5bdb3a2bc22NNNNN.webp - Hindutva activist Ragini Tiwari was seen pelting stones and making inflammatory remarks against Muslims. Source: The Wire, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=668EaVxdqwk%7Clanguage=en%7Caccess-date=2021-06-09

Neither of those sources are mentioned at WP:RSP so there is no community consensus about them, although they appear to be reliable to me.

The first claim is corroborated by both sources. See the video at 5:23, which goes into detail about Kapil Mishra's inflammatory remarks. This should be included in the article.

For the second image, the video cited shows (repeatedly) a woman who looks like the image throwing stones at a crowd. At 7:55 the narrator introduces her inflammatory remarks, which are then shown, and at 8:48 the narrator mentions the name "Ragnini Tiwari" during the shot of a woman throwing stones, suggesting it is the same woman, but I don't see that as a positive identification. This one could be included but the caption should be changed to remove the bit about "pelting stones" because I don't see that as a 100% positive identification.

Both sources should be used, however, for the Kapil Mishra image. ~Anachronist (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that claims about living people should be sourced to top-line sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

IN the case of the second wp:undue may come into it, who the hell is she, is she even mentioned in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

At least don't remove the Kapil Mishra image, he was clearly involved in the riots. Ragini Tiwari was also involved in the riots not only the Wire but other new portals also mentioned her ~User:Tamjeed Ahmed — Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There may be a place for a picture, but not with that text. What (for example) has he entered a plea for? There is no mention of any plea in the source provided (or indeed any court case).Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly written that a court case was filled against Kapil Mishra in his Wikipedia article Kapil Mishra. ~User:Tamjeed Ahmed

Then find a source and use it that says this (and no Wikipedia is not a source).Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

And this would be better as text, not a caption to a picture, let's have prose text.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

We need to know what he was charged with, what his plea is, etc. A picture caption can't do this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

OpIndia a fact finding committee?

Hello! I noticed that this page mentions that OpIndia as a fact finding report. However, OpIndia failed to get accreditation from the International Fact Checking Network, which found that they are biased and didn't use data sufficiently. I request the admins and senior editors to allow me to remove OpIndia from the fact finding report section. Thanks! Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Tamjeed Ahmed There are no "senior editors" and admins have no more authority than any other user, just some extra buttons. Regarding your query, it is true that OpIndia is depreciated as a source, see WP:OPINDIA. However, in this instance it is not being used as a source, but it is written simply to note the existence of its report. You and other readers are free to consider it biased and reject it as a basis for your personal views. 331dot (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes sir! Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hindu attack on Muslims!!??

Dear Wikipedia and its users/editors, have you not correctly "read" or "viewed" about the cases and reports? I ask, was there any hindu who had pointed a gun on policeman? What about the arrest of that suspended AAP MLA? You have a neutrality dispute. It's almost one and a half year, and still you think the hindus were responsible??!! I urge you, request you, Please, STOP THIS NONSENSE OF BLAMING A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. Weren't there even a single event of violence by muslims? You are posting it one-sided information, and please remove/change/edit the phases that is targeting hindus. Muslims were involved in the violence as well, and other non-muslims (mostly Hindus) suffered loss. By the way, what was the name and religion of that person who stretched out a gun at police; and name that Intelligence Officer, who was killed? Utkarsh555 (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

We say Hindus were attacked in fact we say "the dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted." (in the lede). We do not blame them, we repeat what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Utkarsh555 Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say. If those sources are being summarized incorrectly, please point out the specific errors and how they differ from what the given sources say. If you disagree with what the sources say, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Many reference pages are shown to do not exist anymore on the official news website . Thus, these references should be changed as the validity of these news are not more guaranteed by the respective news agencies . 2402:3A80:1F64:CB44:0:0:8C5:80F5 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There are archived versions available if needed. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021

The involvement of Taahir hussain is to be highlighted. It was a planned attack by muslim mobs which backfired as Hindus were more in count. The details provided in the article are partial. I am a resident of the place where the whole event occured and would be able to provide a good insight about the whole situation. Kshitiz2425 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Kshitiz2425 You have not proposed a specific change you would like to see to this article. I would suggest that you review the archives of this talk page, as well as WP:BLP, to learn why the article is worded the way it is. Furthermore, we cannot accept personal accounts of the events; all information must be sourced to independent reliable sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2021

When 15 Hindus died out of total 53 people which is close to 30 % than how can this be termed as a Anti muslim riots. Stop your propoganda & counting deaths based on religion. Both Hindus & Muslims died & term it as a Anti Humanity riots. 2405:204:A289:7485:CCC0:3D01:E1D2:A0C5 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Because RS say it was?Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done You have not proposed a specific change you would like to see to this article. I would suggest that you review the archives of this talk page, as well as WP:BLP, to learn why the article is worded the way it is. Furthermore, all information must be sourced to independent reliable sources that can be verified. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Some edits to account Attacks on hindus as well

1)"and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." -> "And caused chiefly by clashes between Hindu and Muslim mobs and protesters". -para 1

2)Removal of "Muslims were marked as targets for violence." -para 2
because this is contradicted by information mentioned in para 3
"on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns."

3)"called for Delhi Police to clear the roads" -> "called for Delhi Police to clear the roads to restore normalcy against riot-like atmosphere" - para 3

4)"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" -> "On the same day, a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails" - para 3"Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence" is opinion not fact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Extorc (talk • contribs) 14:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted.", we already say there were hindu victims.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: So if evidence of attacks from both sides exists, then how is it "Hindu Mobs attacking Muslims" only. You should have a more neutral statement.Extorc (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a not what we say, try quoting the whole sentence.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.[12][13] Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows, or set on fire.[14][15][16] The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted." If attacks were made from both sides and both community suffered casualties, then why is it written to be "chiefly" caused by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.Extorc (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Because that is what RS say, based (I suspect) on the fact over twice as many Muslims were killed.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Extorc: Please read the extensive archives. Your questions are not original, not by a long shot, they have been already asked again and again and again and answered again and again and again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Extorc: "Jai Shri Ram" (jai=hail; shri= mister or sir) is very much a slogan of Hindu nationalism cooked up by the people from what is today Maharashtra and Gujarat who constituted the bulk of Hindu nationalists in the early days. It was they who came up with this name from their Sanskritized traditions. On the other hand, the people in the Hindi-speaking belt, especially in the United Provinces, the traditional land of Ram, had an intimate relationship with their Lord; children were named after him; he and his consort were a part of morning greetings. Among the greetings were: "jai ram" OR "siya ram" OR "jai jai ram" OR "jay siya ram". See their occurrence in books published before 1925, the year of the founding of the RSS, the first Hindu nationalist organization, in this Google search. On the other hand, a search for jai shri ram" OR "jai shree ram" OR "jai shri rama" OR "jai shree rama" brings up just one Google link, which is a mistake, as it is from the Indian parliament (Lok Sabha) debate of the 1970s. And what do you think it is? It is about a documentary from Gujarat made in 1974 called, "Jai Shree Ram Yane Hanuman Vijaya" produced by "Basant Pictures." The slogan "Jai Shri Ram" is not a native greeting of the land of Rama. It is an artificial one with political overtones. One tell-tale sign is that children can't pronounce it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased

The article is heavily biased and most “sources” are literally opinion pieces form major publications. Quite the opposite of unbiased and fair. Prateekbhatia91 (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Prateekbhatia91 Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased and fair, see WP:TRUTH. We only claim that it is possible to verify what is found here, and that it is written with a neutral point of view. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias and other factors- as you have done. If you wish to challenge the reliability of any media outlet, please do so at WP:RSN. If you have specific concerns about the content of this article, please offer your sources and suggestions for changes here. I would urge you to carefully review the archives of this talk page first, as you are hardly the first person to make this claim. Note that much Indian media is heavily biased towards one side or the other, so international media has largely been used. 331dot (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

2020 Northeast Delhi riots were anti-Hindu and not anti-Muslim

A Delhi court has framed charges against 10 Muslims accused in the 2020 Northeast Delhi anti-Hindu riots, observing that their main objective was to create fear in the minds of the victims belonging to the Hindu community and threaten them to leave the country by looting and burning their properties, reports Live Law.

Additional Sessions Judge Virender Bhatt, in his order passed on December 13, 2021 stated, “From the utterances of the rioters comprising the unlawful assembly, as mentioned by these witnesses in their statements, it is limpid that the object of the assembly was to create fear and panic in the minds of the people belonging to the Hindu community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot as well as burn their properties. Bhandarik (talk) 13:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Bhandarik Please see the discussion above, which discusses this exact issue. The problem is that such statements from a court violate WP:BLP as they suggest people are guilty of crimes. We cannot post such a statement until after their trial(if there is a trial) is concluded with a guilty verdict in a court of law. The statement that the riots targeted Muslims is supported by several independent reliable sources, who report what they observe and do not name specific persons, so that is an acceptable statement. If you have independent reliable sources that say differently, please offer them. Note that most Indian media has too much of a dog in the fight(so to speak) to be considered independent sources for this article- there is credible reporting that Indian media was pressured by the government to give a certain point of view. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter how many separate threads are launched, the answer will be the same.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Extremely biased article

It really seems that thw writer has written with an agenda. While there is an attempt to detail out the violence against the Muslims, there is no mention of what lead to the death of 15 Hindus. A clear conflict: December 2021 courr ruling has convicted several Muslims for insighting violence during 2020 Delhi riots. Can the reader think Muslims could be culprits by reading this article? Also, words like "Modi's party" and mentions like Delhi Police is controlled by centre show that the author wants to inscribe certain beliefs in the readers' mind. 223.177.122.127 (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

See all the talk page comments above, and in the archive.Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Please offer independent reliable sources describing where persons have been convicted of crimes by a court of law related to this riot; it's my understanding that no trials have been concluded yet. That would not change what such sources say more generally unless they issue formal corrections with regards to their prior reporting. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@223.177.122.127: You are correct about "Modi's party." As it was the first mention of Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, it should be the full name. The error occurred because of scrupulously faithful paraphrasing. The cited article did say "Modi's party," but they had already introduced him by his full name earlier. I have changed it to "prime minister Narendra Modi's party." Thank you. As for the Delhi police being controlled by India's federal government, it was routinely mentioned in all the sources. It was very important for them that the local government of Delhi not be the fall guy in the apportionment of blame for this shameful tragedy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Court verdict on the events of February 25 2020

In view of the new developments that have happened in India, this page must be updated with the below facts ascertained in a court of law. A Delhi Court has framed charges against 10 men in connection with a case concerning the North East Delhi riots, observing that the object of the unlawful assembly was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties. The Court has framed charges against the suspects, under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 436 (Mischief by fire), 452 (House-trespass), 392 (robbery), 427 (mischief) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

References

And what do you think this will enable us to alter?Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven for startersm it will help correct the prejudicial and erroneous statements in the Article like Muslims were marked as targets for violence.

(ec) What matters is the final outcome of a trial, not determinations made by a court related to the charges. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@331dot - is there a court ruling that supports this statement in the second para of the Article? What is the source of this information? Vast majority of the article is based on references which does not qualify the legal litmus test to be admissible as evidence in a court of law, much less convince the court bench to make such observations after listening to witness accounts. I am only asking you to be open minded about it mention this in the chronology of the Aftermath. We can always revisit this and edit it, when the Court passes it's final judgement.

We are not a court of law.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Thanks for stating the obvious. But can you please tell me why this observation from the court cannot be added to the Aftermath chronology that mentions various incidents, investigations that happened after the Riots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

wp:blp is clear, we can't say someone has committed a crime until they are found guilty. So we can't say "was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties".Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Policy requires us to wait for the outcome of the trial, not how the court is interpreting the charges. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven- The Statement - "Muslims were marked as targets for violence" is in violation of wp:blp too as per your own argument. @331dot this statement should be redacted or edited out till the Court judgement on this matter states this in it's ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

No its not, as no one is named.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven - So can you please point me to who is named in this sentence? "was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You yourself named them. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@331Dot I did not. the FIR and following court proceeding documents named them. I am merely quoting it as-is. Please stop filibustering with such immature arguments for an excuse to refuse this edit.

So they are named, read wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven _ they are named in the court. I did not explicitly as you name them. I am only asking you to quote the observation of the court which does not identify them. I am surprised at the inconsistent usage of wp:blp in the history of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

BUt you do want to say "they did it" which we can't, and with that, I am not going to bother anymore, you have been told why we can't make the edit you want. Ignore us if you wish, but do not try and make it. You will get reverted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@SlaterSteven- I am only quoting the facts from the references without making any inferences. You seem to connecting invisible dots to come to a notion that you are clearly prejudicied about. I am only asking you to quote one specific line in the observation of the court which does not identify them. I am surprised at the inconsistent usage of wp:blp in the history of this article. So which of the 3 golden rules of this golden rule of wp:blp does the court observation violate and the sentence already mentioned in the article does'nt? Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability (V) No original research (NOR) Let me put the two sentences side by side so that it is easier for you to read. Exhibit A which is already in the article- "Muslims were marked as targets for vioence." Exhibit B- the object of the unlawful assembly was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties. Which you claim to be in violation of wp:blp

It's not a fact. 331dot (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@331dot- Which one? Exhibit A which is already in the article- "Muslims were marked as targets for vioence." Exhibit B- the object of the unlawful assembly was to create fear in the minds of the people belonging to Hindu Community, threaten them to leave the country and to loot and burn their properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If you disagree with the media reports that say Muslims were targeted, you will need to take that up with those outlets to get them to issue corrections. Your proposal is a nonstarter until someone is convicted of a crime, as you are saying it is a legal determination regarding the charges on the persons you name. It is not the final outcome of their trials. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I am not commenting anything on the media who posted this. My civil contention without any wp:npa and utmost respect for the esteemed editors of this highly neutral and well edited page is ,I find it astounding that you suggest that only one of two sentences that are eerily identical, is in violation of wp:blp

Please sign your posts as I instructed on your user talk page. The media has not said specific persons are guilty of crimes. You want to post something that suggests a court has determined certain facts about alleged suspects, which suggests that they are guilty. Those are as different as apples and oranges. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The media never said that All the victims were Muslims either. But this Article does with a second paragraph starting with Muslims were targeted(trunc.).49.204.199.32 (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)MansNotHotManCanNeverBeHot

The statement is cited to three different sources. Again, if those sources are in error, please get them to issue corrections. Good luck with that. I don't see where it is said that all the victims were Muslims, only that they were targeted. Maybe I missed it. It is also cited that rioters were pulling down the pants of men to check their male anatomy in order to ascertain their religion. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

None of these allegations are proven in a court of law. So why jump the gun based on three news sources which have edited the cited articles multiple times since they were first posted. I am requesting for consistency and neutrality. If you want to talk about matter sub judice in the article, do so consistently or apply wp:blp consistently. 49.204.199.32 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)MansNotHotManCanNeverBeHot

You seem to be adding a username to your posts; if you want to use a username, please create an account. A court of law does not have to determine that Muslims were targeted in order for the media to report their observations. A court of law would need to determine that specific persons targeted Muslims in a riot in order to state that. You want to post that a court made certain determinations about certain alleged suspects(whom you name at the top of this section). That is a BLP violation unless they are found to be guilty of crimes. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I prefer to be anon on Wikipedia, till I find Wikipedia safe and appropriate to create an account.Also, if it was just the fact that the suspects are named above I have redacted the same to not violate wp:blp. There is nothing there to violate BLP as no one is named, but the court observation is as significant in the Aftermath events of the riots, as is the opinion of the media quoted in the secnd paragraph, which has found it's way to the Article.If you think that references are naming someone, you could reach out to them to get it redacted , but wP:blp is nowhere close to being violated in the edit request, in it's current state. 49.204.198.173 (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)MansNotHotManCanNeverBeHot

You are more anon with an account, but that's up to you- but you should not write a username unless you actually have it as your account. You keep saying no one is named, but you named them at the top of this very discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I only quote what the references state. I did not accuse them nor did I file the FIR against them. Nor am I asking for an edit to explicitly name them. Can you point out exactly what part of the statement is violating wp:blp. Please feel free to exclude something that explicitly does so and post the this significant event in the chronology , in adherence to wp:vnt and wp:nottruth 49.204.198.173 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

We're just going around in circles now; I'm not going to repeat what you have been told already. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC?

I recently reverted an RfC posting in relation to this dispute. The main reason I did so is because the RfC's initial statement was not neutral, as required by WP:RFC. My secondary reason was that this dispute is relatively fresh. My secondary reason was a desire to encourage, per WP:RFCBEFORE, continued discussion before seeking widespread input. This dispute is brand new, and there are many talk-page watchers who may yet chime in with thoughts on the matter. Firefangledfeathers 20:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I see you have also posted at WP:DRN. These dispute resolution methods are all intended for situations where talk page discussion can not lead to consensus. I think it's too early to make that call on this page. If you are adamant about posting an RfC, I would happy to work with you on drafting a neutral statement. Firefangledfeathers 20:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Because the riots occurred at a time when there was a substantial international media presence (Donald Trump was in Delhi), they were widely reported. They were unanimously reported by third-party international newspapers to have been caused by Hindu gangs attacking Muslims. We have been through this sort of nitpicking before by IPs and assorted objectors of the moment. It was not just one or two newspapers, it was dozens at the highest levels of reportage (see Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_17). Nearly a dozen administrators were on board. It is unreasonable to expect people who have already expended a great amount of focus and time to make an article NPOV to keep appearing every time a new IP appears making the same tired arguments. The bottom line is that unless the major third-party outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Tribune, NPR, PBS, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, CBC, The Guardian, BBC, The Times of London, Independent, Economist, Le Monde, Deutsche Welles, Sidney Morning Herald, ABC, The Australian, South China Morning Post, ... and a host of others) re-report the riots to have been caused differently or that a court decision or discussion is notable, our hands are tied. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

PS On the other hand, during the last two years—after the riots, that is—stories have appeared in the international press about the Indian media being pressured to be compliant. (See this story co-written by a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter and here). So, there is good reason to continue to discount Indian newspapers, especially when it comes to what goes in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the key here (form wp:rs) is "third party, Indian media is not they are directly involved.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You are aggrandizing a set of select foreign media as the ultimate source of truth. They are neither known to be neutral nor unbiased. And this page is nowhere close to being NPOV as you claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No one says any media source is "the ultimate source for truth". For that matter, we don't claim that what is written here is the truth, see WP:TRUTH. Only you can decide what is true for you. It has already been demonstrated that much Indian media favors one side or the other, and also that they have been pressured by the government regarding their reporting. International media does not answer to the Indian government. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No we are saying that people not involved in the issue may be more reliable than those that are.Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You sound like you are generalizing the riots as the actions of the entire populace. This wp:blp pro max according to supreme laws of Wokiepedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No I am saying that noninvolved RS are less like to be based than involved RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What is RS?49.204.198.173 (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources wp:rs. I have already posted the link to it here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And with a trillion dollar business potential and the disdain in certain countries towards outsourcing of jobs to India, it might well be on the agenda of these so called non involved RS to defame India and it's majority in the global eye. They are pretty much involved and are given way too much importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What? Sorry but this needs to stop now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have evidence that certain media outlets have an anti-India agenda, please offer it as WP:RSN. 331dot (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Evidence has been offered that Indian media has been pressured here. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Has a court of law passed a judgement on this anywhere on the planet?49.204.198.173 (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No, but we have decided it here, by our rules.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

What rules are those? One where you want a court to rule before making an edit for certain content and let a RS set the narrative unopposed otherwise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.198.173 (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No, there is no court. This is just a website. But yes, reliable sources "set the narrative", if that's how you want to frame "verify article content". Drmies (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

wp:blp is clear, we can't say people are guilty of a crime until they are convicted, whatever a judge may say. This has been pointed out more than once, and this is now well beyond wp:tenditious edting.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Respected Slatersteven, Given your immense experience, you may re-consider such narrow interpretation of wp:blp, else you may have to remove the reference to other LIVING PERSONS such as Kapil Mishra, who is mentioned as allegly guilty in this article, without any court verdict.

"On 23 February 2020, a leader of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Kapil Mishra, called for Delhi Police to clear the roads, failing which he threatened to "hit the streets".[29][30]"After Mishra's ultimatum, violence erupted.[31]

If Kapil Mishra can be included, then 49.204.198.173 (talk) should be allowed to mention of Court's preliminilary findings in the article, if they have multiple reliable sources.

WP:BLP is mainly for Biography pages of living persons, and should not be misused on general topic articles for blocking well sourced contributions. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Jhy.rjwk No, BLP applies to any edit on any page(even talk pages) about a living person. 331dot (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not a crime to demand that police clear the streets. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Did he not do this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for some clarification on BLP 331dot. I am not interested in this topic yet, so I have no more query at this point for Slatersteven Bye. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2022

Hi This narrative describing that hindu mob attya ked muims is wrong and targeting Hindu community

Please refer the official FIR and chargesheet submitted in the Delhi Court, which has detailed narrative where it is established that muslims mobs were storing bottle and stones since long

When few protesters started slogning in support of CAA muslims of that locality went to their roof and started throwing bottles and stones and that's how it started.

Please correct this and stop targeting Hindus 2409:4043:4E97:AB4B:0:0:4489:4814 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

PLease read the copoious talk page threads about this already, nothing more can be added to this debate that has not already been said.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't base article content on charges, but on what independent reliable sources say(most Indian media is not independent with regards to this incident and has been pressured by the government to report a certain narrative). 331dot (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason why we couldn't mention the suggested addition ("Muslim mobs storing bottles and stones" and starting the protest by throwing them) provided this was reported in reliable independent (and preferably non-Indian) media sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem it is is form a charge sheet, thus we would have to say "charged with", then we have to ask, why not wait until they are convicted?16:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Extremely Biased against hindus and against court evidences as per trial

Umar Khalid and co conspirators from jamia found are on trial with strong evidence of violence being planned and intentionally provoked Violence was planned along with pushing women on the front lines and having non residents come along. Weapons were raised and anti hindu chants were raised before the riots The Delhi police claimed before a city court on Wednesday that there were 34 messages of violence in a WhatsApp group of which the accused in northeast Delhi riots were members Videos of alleged rioters carrying sticks were also played in the court by the public prosecutor. “Now we see visible signs of peaceful protest. Carrying a flag. Sign of ‘so-called’ peaceful protest – carrying a sword and dundas and chilli powder and acid distributed… These are being distributed or prepared for the so called peaceful protest Its shameful that wikipedia which long know for its left wing bias and protecting militant Islamist would shift the blame to a relegious community without sufficient ground to stand on and propogate it's own agenda. It has long been losing its credibility as a reliable information and now has become a straight mouthpiece for left wing and liberals to target and slander those they see as opposition. 112.196.188.54 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please go through the talk page archive and read all the replies given about this argument already.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please also read Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You shouldn't trust anything your read here. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

Delhi riot mastermind (redacted) 👇👇 Source [2]2402:3A80:15A2:6FBC:0:1B:238C:A301 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done Please read WP:BLP(which also applies to this page, thus I have redacted the name). This individual must be convicted of a crime in a court of law, not the court of public opinion or the press, to name them a "mastermind". What police write in notes or on charge sheets is irrelevant. Also note that Indian media is not entirely independent on this matter and has been pressured by the government to report a certain narrative. 331dot (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)\

331dot Share reliable sources that support this claim that Indian media has been pressured by the government. Opinions of certain individuals should not count as evidence much like the chargesheet of the Police. There needs to be irrefutible evidence for you to make this statement. If you cannot share any such evidence, I request you to redact this allegation or you will be reported to the admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk • contribs)

LOL 33dot Is an Admin, as am I. Doug Weller talk 20:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I will quote Archive 18: "On the other hand, during the last two years—after the riots, that is—stories have appeared in the international press about the Indian media being pressured to be compliant. (See this story co-written by a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter and here).". 331dot (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

THe articles cited themself states that the contents of the article are opinion of the writer but you seem to assume them as the holy gospel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume nothing as "gospel". I read and cite independent reliable sources. All news reports are the opinion of their authors. The sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves. You are free to review them and judge them as invalid. That does not mean they can be prevented from use here; on the other hand, clearly biased sources that are pressured by a government to report a certain narrative and judge people guilty in the court of public opinion and not a court of law are completely inappropriate. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Op Eds are not news articles unless you want to apply your own biases and interpretations to them. You are clearly unqualified to be moderating this page as you are too ideologically invested and biased to make a rational judgement on edit requests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.76.114.80 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your views are noted. Unless you have a specific error in how sources are summarized in this article, or have new sources that detail convictions in a court of law, there is nothing more to add here. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Not only that, but the source provided at the top of this section pretty much contradicts that the individual was the "mastermind", taking pains to publish his explanations of why this isn't true. Furthermore, there is no actual edit request here.

Therefore, again,  Not done. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims to -> caused by a (redacted) according to charge sheet filed by Delhi Police. 171.61.36.227 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Information is not based on "charge sheets", but on independent reliable sources that report convictions in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

171.61.36.227 you may want to read and comprehend the WP:BLP policy first before you request another violation of it. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Court update on denial of bail to alleged conspirator Khalid

Dear Editors, I am so glad to see such a great unbiased report of The Delhi Riots. All referenced articles are of high grade. Just update that Khalid Bhai has not been granted bail. Are we going to appeal in SC? Thanks! 119.56.104.58 (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Perception

This page is full of Hindu hates and should not even exist.

The incident Dont even mentioned CAA was not even applicable to Indian Muslim but still they blocked and protected for 3 months making life hell for common people to commute. 2A02:C7D:9BE3:4A00:E5B0:4C39:57A1:929C (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2022

The riots happened because of protest against CAA that was being opposed by Indian Muslims because they thought that their nationality would be confiscated where as the Indian government made it clear multiple times that no Indian citizen would be harmed. The Indian Muslims were misguided by their communal leaders and that was the primary cause of riots. 122.161.78.122 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but I am unsure that this would change our article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done Please provide independent reliable sources to support your assertions. Make sure such sources are truly independent, as Indian media either has a dog in the fight(figure of speech) or is being pressured by the Indian government to report a certain narrative. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Instigation of riots

Please dnt get biased, be fair in this opinion, Its well known that Riots were instigated by Non Hindus . The man was behind the attack had accepted his role behind Riots, who provided stones n petrol bombs in his apartment. Please be fair 59.177.109.4 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This article summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Note that we cannot claim that someone "instigated" the riots unless they are convicted in a court of law, and not the court of public opinion, according to the Biographies of Living Persons policy(please review). If there are specific errors or missing information in this article that you can point out consistent with the BLP policy, please describe the specific changes here. I'd also advise you to review the archives of this page as what you want to do has likely been discussed before.

Also note that the Indian government has pressured Indian media to report a certain narrative[3] . 331dot (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert

@Slatersteven: please clarify what do you mean by "views of one or two poeple should be given this much prominance"? And if you were so "unsure" then you shouldn't have made the revert in the first place. Firstly, these "two people" aren't ordinary folks but university professors who even have their own wikipedia articles. Secondly, there views were covered by RS in relation to this very event. Thirdly, its properly attributed and in quotation marks therefore you need to come up with a better argument based on WP policies for removal. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but wp:consensus is clear, it is down to you to make an argument for inclusion. My objection was that you have given their views too much prominence, now a reduced (say one line) nations of both of them might be OK, at the end of the section. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the addition was well founded as it is not a minority view. "The BJP is the political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a militant Hindu nationalist paramilitary organisation that has been accused repeatedly of orchestrating attacks on Muslims. The BJP, which believes that India should be a Hindu, not a secular, nation, has fostered an environment of hate in India. Lynchings of Muslims began and Muslims have been gradually relegated to second-class citizens in their own country. His landslide re-election victory in May 2019 prompted an escalation of the Hindu nationalist agenda." The Guardian. Hindu nationalist BJP supporters’ ‘pent-up anger’ behind deadly Delhi riots - France24Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Which part of "this only needs one line" was hard to understand? And these is just two academics, as such wp:undue comes into it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

"this only needs one line" says which policy? Now, these aren't two but four academics with criticism which rests the undue argument. For the sake of NPOV, if you can come up with academics having opposing views please bring them forward and insert it into the article. Peace. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We also have no policy saying we must include this either. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

But we have WP:NOTCENSORED policy which means one cannot omit something out of their whim. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven. This is a tired old article. Make your case here and seek consensus for any nontrivial edits. Consensus typically takes several days, a week, sometimes several weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the edit reverted here about "Academic" section, the first paragraph sourced to Times[4] is about broader violence in India since the source itself says:"The trend we see across India is that a lot of the violence perpetrated against Muslims", and "When he was elected in 2014, there was a sharp uptick in lynchings of Muslims." Quotes were absolutely cherrypicked.

The second paragraph was clearly WP:RECENTISM and used the sources published 3 days before the riots actually ended.[5][6]

Can I get some eyes over at Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims#Delhi_riots where this disputed content has certainly found a life at Persecution of Muslims#2020 Delhi riots without gaining consensus over this main article prior-hand? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

103.240.170.137 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February 2020 and caused chiefly by Muslim mobs attacking hindu and police.[12][13] Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows, or set on fire.[14][15][16] The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted.[15] More than a week after the violence had ended, hundreds of wounded were languishing in inadequately staffed medical facilities and corpses were being found in open drains.[17] By mid-March many Muslims had remained missing.[12]

•  Not done Please offer a source to support your proposed addition of the word "police" to the lead. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  The proposal also switched around "Muslim" and "Hindu" to change the meaning completely, without offering any reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a biased article and factually incorrect

They say this was caused by the Hindus and 53 Muslims were dead. But in the same article they say that the Anti-CAA protesters started by pelting stone (or) using violence. This was the first violence reported so how can this be termed as a Hindu violence when it was started by anti-CAA or muslim community? 205.148.51.41 (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

We do not say 53 Muslims were killed, try reading the article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)