Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Mob

This word is used a lot, for example 7 times in the lead. I wonder if it's overused and always in line with sources. I checked one source which said "rioters" (and also "mob"). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Wareon (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Many news fron Caravan to Aljazeera report news as "Anti Muslim riot" "Anti Muslim Carnage"

The news articles are itself terming this as "Anti-Muslim",[9], then shouldn't it be better to use Islamophobia as a cause. Opened discussion coz its better instead of undoing the edit. @NedFausa: Edward Zigma (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why you are looking for the worst sources? Caravanmagazine is an unreliable blog while Al-Jazeera has been convicted of promoting fake news, see Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. Wareon (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, "anti-Muslim" (which means opposing anything Muslim) does not equate to "Islamaphobia" (which means fear of Islam). Please see WP:SYNTHESIS; we don't do that on Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point. I doesnt come across any news which calls it outright Islamophobic, all news articles are calling it "Anti-Muslim" until now. Should we add "anti-Muslim" if that's the case?Edward Zigma (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the term should be a noun (a cause is a noun), and "anti-Muslim" is an adjective (unlike "Islamaphobia" which is a noun). Perhaps "anti-Muslim sentiment"? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma, I fear you may be oversimplifying an extremely complex situation. The Caravan′s subhead, sweepingly referring to "Delhi's anti-Muslim carnage," appears next to a photo of Mohammed Zubair, who was (the caption explains) "attacked by group of Hindu right-wing men." Are all Hindu right-wing men anti-Muslim? Might some, at least, be motivated by something other than being anti-Muslim? Wikipedia needs to be wary about painting with too broad a brush. NedFausa (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we second-guess what a source means when it publishes something? I'm against stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, but at some point if multiple sources describe an incident as "anti-Muslim", then isn't that sufficient for Wikipedia to do the same? ~Anachronist (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah then it should be better to remove it as well. Islamophobia is not mentioned in any prominent source. It would be better to not to use it until proper consensus achieved or prominent news media est. it.Edward Zigma (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Anachronist, naturally if a preponderance of WP:RS call the violence in general anti-Muslim, or brand a specific incident that way, we are justified in citing those sources. But I honestly don't know whether or not there is such agreement among the media, either in India or internationally, about an event with so many moving parts. Before we attach that label, I'd like to be sure it really describes what most sources have reported. NedFausa (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the article doesn't currently contain the word "Islamaphobia" anywhere, and "anti-Muslim" doesn't appear in the "caused by" section of the infobox. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems biased reporting because foreign media had only reported about activity of hindu national mobs and suffering of muslims while completely ignored activity of muslim mob and suffering of Hindus. Also The writers are in some cases are Indian muslims who have biased against Hindu national and ignore the wrong doing of muslims. Dev0745 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reaction in Europe and America

In many cities in Europe and America people protested and rallied outside the Indian Embassies and consulates.

We needs to add this in reaction section. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

References

I saw something similar in one of the sources I reviewed earlier today. I'd agree that is warrants some inclusion in the Reaction section. Will try to draft something over the next day; but if anyone else wants to put somethign in, please do so. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Just the present lead/introduction and background is enough. However, we should mention Kapil Mishra, Ishrat Jahan and Tahir Hussain, the main perpetrators.—Spasiba5 (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just removed a section made up of laundry list of non-notable UK politicians. The entry seemed cherry picked too. Azuredivay (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  Edward Zigma, please note. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  The violence in Delhi was discussed for whooping half a day in the house of commons. Every parliamentarian condemned this. If someone supported it then it should be added too. But no one supported it. Please re add it.Azuredivay Edward Zigma (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Still "trivial" as described in the original edit. They discuss many things and we don't have to cover them all but instead mention the view by Boris Johnson if there is any, otherwise forget this. Mohanabhil (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Then my proposed version is that mention that Delhi violence attracted heavy criticism for Indian government, many MPs criticised it and mention the comment made by Whittome coz her responsed attracted many article. Even Huffington post reported focussing her comment.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why not Boris Johnson if you could add statement by Erdogan? We don't need to do cherrypicking here. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

There's not much I can do

@El C, Vanamonde93, and Kautilya3: There is not much I can do. Editors making edits that favor the Hindutva perspective have reverted all my edits, not in one revert, but cleverly disguised in two dozen small edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I noticed. Can't their changes be reverted? SerChevalerie (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, your edits removed a chunk of content from the sources, especially the specific quotes attached to them. Can you please explain why? SerChevalerie (talk) 11:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: You have provided misleading edit summary when it comes to the lead. Lead was correctly restored back to stable consensus version before you restored problematic lead back. Wareon (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Wareon, kindly point me to where consensus was achieved for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Just saw you combined both old and new edits. Though I don't agree at all with over bragging of muslim related losses on very first paragraph. It needs to be toned down. Wareon (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with Fowler&fowler, there is no authenticity. Whole article is now filled with hindutva like propaganda spaced.requesting user @El C, Vanamonde93, and Kautilya3: to take strong action. What happened has happened, and it should be shown. But now Spasiba5 and many others have filled and turn it into a propaganda article. And I am stongly against it. Edward Zigma (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5 has been banned from the IPA topic area. If there are other editors who are violating policy, please feel free to list them at Arbitration enforcement so that their prospective violations could be further investigated and, if necessary, corrective action taken. El_C 17:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, as per MOS:LEADREL and MOS:LEAD, the mentioned incidents are not necessary in lead. Kindly self-revert them.

Additionally, your other edits are gently pushing the WP:POV towards a narrative for which consensus has not been achieved yet. Kindly explain your actions. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, this edit, you are breaking WP:1RR. Kindly revert your edits. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm horribly busy in RL and cannot do anything substantive for a few days at least. It may be worth considering requesting EC protection for this article, if you can show that most edits by newbies are not policy-compliant. Those editors that have EC status can still be a problem, but they have enough of a track record that individual sanctions are effective in dealing with them. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the article written by foreign media are too biased while they mention about Hindu mob but totally ignore what muslim mob have done. So it is necessary to add what Indian media have written. Dev0745 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C please note the above breaking of WP:1RR by Dev0745. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the article is already EC protected. El_C 18:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: My bad, missed that somehow. Thanks. It was necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, I'm not seeing 1RR having been violated in this instance. You need to show that each revert is, indeed, a revert, by providing a link to the respective previous version that has been reverted to, also. El_C 18:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

El C, [10] and [11] effectively revert [12]. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, SerChevalerie, I'm still not seeing it. Maybe it would be best if you were to take the prospective violation to AN3 or AE so that other admins could evaluate it. El_C 19:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks El_C, I'll do that if he escalates the situation. Dev0745, please revert the given edits until we reach a proper consensus. Thank you. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

My edit have already reverted by admin.Dev0745 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, please revert [13] until we achieve some consensus on whether it is required. Thank you. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Slight change of proposal about sources above

The problem I see with domestic (Indian) sources is that, like all domestic sources anywhere in the world, there is a veritable echo chamber of them; it is impossible to decide which is saying what because of actual reporting or of mirroring of others; it is impossible to decide which is kowtowing to government pressure and which is not. Relentless focus on who threw the first stone, who killed the policeman, what was the religion of the man who was brandishing a gun, why was his house locked even though his relatives (hint, hint, all wearing skull caps) are standing outside, and so forth makes it not only unreliable but useless for any issue of perspective or encyclopedic notability. I am therefore suggesting that domestic (Indian) sources not be used as far as is possible in the lead. In other words, as an example, if the major third-party foreign newspapers, all of which have a presence in Delhi, such as the ones I have mentioned in a section above, are not looking for a "cause," such as a policeman being killed first by the "protesters," who by implication are Muslim, then we cannot add it in the lead, no matter how the Indian sources are lining up on this issue. The logic is that we ourselves cannot interpret the seemingly contradictory items of news coming out of India, but these correspondents of the foreign newspapers can, and their reporting is good enough; they are obviously aware of the domestic reporting. If we do not stick to foreign sources for the lead, the lead will be flipflopping continuously as many of you have already seen. Sounding out @El C: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

That is why in my edits I have used NYTimes, Washington Post, Independent, Le Monde, Economist, and will diversify the sources even more. The point is that together their collective perspective is the best we have. They can't collectively be anti-India, anti-national, anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, or anti-whatever. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:BALANCED advises: …when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. I find it offensive on its face to propose that only non-Indian sources are reputable in reporting this story. That would serve to bolster the already rampant accusations on social media (and on this Talk page) that Wikipedia is promoting anti-Hindu sentiment. Please, let's not go this route. NedFausa (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I took pains to say that it was not "Indian,' but "domestic," that is a problem, and that it is a problem anywhere in the world. In terms of resolution and semantic levels, domestic news items are high-resolution and low-level. The foreign sources will usually have the detachment for greater perspective, anywhere in the world. They will often be low-resolution and high-level. For essential high-resolution news, such as the numbers of the dead increasing to 53, Indian sources are fine. But for a more general statement such as this being a case of violence in which Muslims were targeted is a high-level semantic judgment. Foreign sources will be better, anywhere in the world. I don't typically edit such pages. There is not much I can do with what social media thinks. I have no interest in it. Wikipedia's imperative is independent of the POVs of people, media or nations, again, anywhere in the world. It is an equal opportunity ideological-offender. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

At 21:16, you described the problem I see with domestic (Indian) sources. … I am therefore suggesting that domestic (Indian) sources not be used as far as is possible in the lead. Now, at 22:23, you declare I took pains to say that it was not "Indian,' but "domestic"… Please make up your mind. If domestic ≠ Indian, what does domestic mean? NedFausa (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made up my mind in another section upstairs where I described the acceptable list of sources. I am narrowing them down further, to third-party international sources. "Domestic" vs "International" is a general description; in America "domestic" would mean American whereas in India it would mean Indian. "Third-party" is context-dependent, a reference to sources which will not have a conflict of interest with the story. In this instance as I've explained above and below, it is not just "Indian," but also South Asian (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Nepali newspapers), Islamic (Al-Jazeera, Saudi Arabian, Turkish, Malaysian, Indonesian, newspapers), ideologically-aligned (Russian and Chinese newspapers) would be ruled out. However, US, Canadian, Mexican, Brazilian, British, Continental, Israeli, South African, Japanese, Australian, New Zealand newspapers would be fine, especially reliable ones that have a presence in India, i.e. a reporter, even better a bureau. Surely, no one can say they are all biased in reporting this story. If you don't make such a restriction, ideological or sectarian battles that Wikipedia is not in a position to judge—nor for the most part able to monitor, much less manage, without serious reallocation of resources—get fought on its pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• To say that you have used foreign sources seems a bit of over-presentation if you want to say that they have more credibility. In your edits you highlighted aspects of one side over other. Why you used a source from 27 February when a source from 2 March from [   https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/03/02/world/asia/ap-as-india-violence.html  New York Times] is much better? There are real POV problems in the lead at this moment. Mohanabhil (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• That's an AP story, without a byline, carried by NYT; in other words, it is regular newsfeed from an agency. Regardless, you are right, the AP story could certainly have been used to update the mortality figures to 46, but it is too late now, as the mortality has gone up. I typically don't like anonymous news agency stories, but in the absence of signed stories, they're OK. I'm not saying my edits are infallible, only that third-party reporting, ie. in this instance: not-Indian, not South Asian, not Islamic (Al Jazeera etc), not ideologically compromised (Russian or Chinese) are best for this sort of charged and disputed story. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• An AP story published and endorsed by NY Times. I also think we need to summarize at least the first most paragraph of the lead per this source because it is at least far more neutral than this article. Consider taking a look at this recent BBC source too which say "Riots broke out in north-east Delhi after clashes between protesters for and against a controversial citizenship law turned violent." Sounds more neutral to me compared to our article right now. Azuredivay (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't waste my time with nonsense. AP is owned by hundreds of (American) newspapers, including the NY Times. They don't endorse anything, only pay for each story they carry. The AP has a vast network of reporters, but also informers, more than any newspaper is capable of having; its stories are vetted, its writing stylebook is famous, but anonymous AP, or Reuters stories, do not carry the imprimatur of the NY Times that signed NY Times stories do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you seriously think the New York Times has an editorial staff that is checking the details of all these AP stories? It will go bankrupt sooner than its detracters are predicting for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, my sincere apologies for restoring the troublesome parts of the lead, I blindly merged your version with the previous one. Thank you for clarifying in your edit summaries. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, please use the information AS PER THE SOURCE. In [14], you added the line 'Anti-CAA protestors' (stating in your edit summary "as per source") while the source clearly says "Protesters wearing masks and waving swords clash with police." Even the grammatical changes you made were not required. Kindly self-revert this. Your POV pushing will not do here. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Although protesters were anti CAA protesters but sources don't mention it so I removed anti-CAA... thanks Dev0745 (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, this edit [15] is also not required as per the discussion above and at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#The_lead._"Riot;"_mortality,_property_destruction;_and_issues_of_cohesion. Kindly revert until further consensus (or significant WP:RS) is achieved. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, Admin had edited the lead section but I find it insufficient as it only mention riots in 24 February but ignore riots of 23 February on the day which initial riot started. Also India Today news articles are cited as sources. I just expanded it to present full picture. I will talk with admin Fowler&fowler, for now I am removing it. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Fowler&fowler with this. The article has been significantly changed in disguise of several small edits. I really hope articles like (Redacted) from OpIndia didn't influence them. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Dev0745: Fowler is not an administrator. You need to focus on the dispute in the hand which mainly concerns the first paragraph of the lead which is non-neutral. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I can see lead section is non-neutral. But According to wikipedia policy , third party sources are given priority. In this case foreign media are third party who have selective reporting.Dev0745 (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Biased lead

Lead section seems baised. It mention Hindu mob with stick and weapons but ignore the muslim mob who had also carried petrol bombs and weapons. I think foregion media is baised in covering about the incident while they have mentioned about Hindu national mob but ignored muslim mob. Lead should be neutral with mention of both Hindu and Muslim mob.

References

Dev0745 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

What possible reason would foreign media have to be biased, in either direction? If anything, they represent detachment from the topic, because they are uninvolved. Please clarify. El_C 19:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems biased reporting because foreign media had only reported about activity of hindu national mobs and suffering of muslims while completely ignored activity of muslim mob and suffering of Hindus. Also The writers are in some cases are Indian muslims who have biased against Hindu national and ignore the wrong doing of muslims. Dev0745 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument about the orientation of the writers comes across as original research — i.e. it isn't attributed to any reliable sources making that argument. You cannot basically make stuff up. Wikipedia does not work that way. We go by what reliable sources say, and detachment from the matter at hand is an advantage, not a disadvantage. El_C 19:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, It is selective reporting.Dev0745 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead section inadequate as It don't mention clash between Pro CAA and anti CAA protesters when anti CAA protesters hurled stones on Pro CAA protesters on 23 February. Anti CAA protesters wearing helmets and carrying sword clash with police. These things are mentioned in India Today news articles. These things should be included in lead section. Now lead section seems biased as it only mention Hindu national carrying weapons on 24 February. It not mention clash of Anti CAA protesters wearing helmets, carrying sword and stone throwing at Police.

References

Dev0745 (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Dev0745, kindly refer to Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#The_lead._"Riot;"_mortality,_property_destruction;_and_issues_of_cohesion. Thank you. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"This article by Hindustan Times". can be of help too. Mohanabhil (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Still baised as lead section don't represent whole picture of incidents. riots started on 23 February as opposed to what lead section say.Dev0745 (talk) 04:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that you are wrong, but you should propose your text with sources. Mohanabhil (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy third party sources, here foreign media, get priority but all foreign media have selective reporting..Dev0745 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey SerChevalerie and Dev0745 the lead is definitely biased. None of the cited sources has any mention of Hindus being targeted. Muslims were described as having been targeted by the rioters. The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters. The Indian government swiftly characterized the violence to be spontaneous. Many Muslims have since begun to leave these neighbourhoods. Moreover, many of the citations (especially of NYT) seem to be a part of the editorial, not news reporting. So the newspaper's editorial policy definitely affects these. So many of the observations are just opinions, not facts. Further, you cannot say that they are independent just because they are from a third country. Many of them are prejudiced against India.One of the NYT citations used blames Modi for going ahead with Supreme Court's order in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. How can that be neutral? They have criticized art 370 abrogation so vehemently but haven't included even one view from the other side. Why? I think the lead should only consist of facts as it was earlier. These can be incorporated into the body of the article. Trojanishere (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

SerChevalerie, Dev0745 Further all the articles have skirted around the fact of anti-CAA mob first pelting the stones at pro-CAA supporters. The death of a cop, attempted lynchings of DCP and an ACP is also not mentioned. There is an agenda. Trojanishere (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

I know but these things are not reported by any foreign media, so not included in lead section. Dev0745 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Overstruck edit history

Time and date stamps for the overwhelming majority of edits have suddenly been struckover at this Talk page's revision history, making it impossible to compare edits with those preceding and following. Was it something I said? NedFausa (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been instances of WP:OUTING on the part of drive-by complainers, and sometimes many edits go by before it is realized, and then every revision that contains the outing text needs to be suppressed, including revisions by innocent editors just because the page happens to include the offending text. That is why. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Mobs from outside called

Mobs from outside Delhi was called to participate in riots. Source: https://www.news18.com/news/india/class-warfare-over-2000-outsiders-occupied-two-schools-to-carry-out-delhi-riots-says-state-minorities-panel-report-2525473.html Zikrullah (talk) 09:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Good find. This deserves a mention on lead. Mohanabhil (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:lede.Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Slow spaced disruptive editing on page by some user.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is to point out that Dev0745 despite getting encouraged many times to have a discussion is changing article spaced into the whole article, tryimg to push a particular POV. Kautilya3 El_C Edward Zigma (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think article seems anti-hindu bias. While There are many place where there is mentioned of hindu symbols or slogans but don't mention muslim slogan where it should be mention. Dev0745 (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

no. You are taking it like one on one. There is already a discussion on this about that and its reliability. Stop doing spaced vandilation. The purpose is to shaow what happened. Not to make it seem what happened. Edward Zigma (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I had edited according to what mentioned in news article, clash of mob by sreaming religious slogan. So according to you these things not happened? If it is not required, then why mention Screaming of hindu religious slogan or wearing Hindu symbols while torching mosque and properties. Dev0745 (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

let me again clear that to you which I have mentioned hundred times that The reason to mention is that it is mentioned by heavy number of international and national media. If the other one is same then no doubt it will be added too. But just on one measly source which is unreliable, you cannot make both equal. If you have prominent portals which have mentioned it, then do add it in talk section. But the problem is about slow spaced editing. Stop doing this if you don't want to get blocked. It's again a request.Edward Zigma (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma Funny that you are the one excusing others of non-neutrality after this brazenly biased revert of yours. The source mentions both slogans, but you are trying to cherry-pick only one of them. This is a serious violation of WP:NPOV and I will suggest you to abstain from such bias in the future. (Not reverting your edit because of the 1RR rule.) Bharatiya29 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong!!! The one slogan is picked by international and national news portals alike. If you have mentions of another from more than one reliable sources from intenrational and national media then no one will have any problem. The mention of one meant that it was heavily reported coz it was generalised, whilr the other one might be localised but you cannot say it was raised in every instanCe. If you have more than one reliable source which definitely confirms this, then I will add it myself. The riots as per reports by far says that they were "Mostly"(not everywhere) one sided with police action in doubt. If they were equal you dont have to force equality. If they are not, then you don't have to force the equality, you have to just add what happened. Lack of reliable sources in other instance clear proves that it might be localised. If you have any proof that it was widely raised, then please cite them. Localised intances won't make much difference. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all, provide reliable sources to back your claim otherwise they are useless on a platform like Wikipedia. Let me do the same to get the ball rolling - India Today, Newslaundry, The Wire, Scroll, Swarajya (the link to which is on the blacklist for reasons completely beyond my comprehension). The last three sources are generally linked to diagonally opposite ends of the political spectrum, so that should make it clear how widely accepted is the fact that the Allah-u-Akbar slogan was used during the riots. Bharatiya29 16:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The international articles have proved that what had happend. I am citing some of them.

• Citation 1
• Citation 2
• Citation 3

I have cited 2 international citations and one India by far in this. If you have the sources with on the same par with this or even close to this please cite them. We will compare both. If both are equal with same context and compare their reliability. This is not POV pushing. Brothers and sisters need to understand that what has happened has to be shown. What has happened is (heart wrenching) in my POV. But I cannot add it. We have to be totally unbiased in each and every word. I was very much like you all but I learn the hard way that we have a responsibility. This is not a social media or a blog. Please it's a request. What Indian media has shown(news channels) is mostly a POV pushing trying to fame and defame in their agendas. We cannot allow it on wikipedia. I really hope all of will understand our responsibility for free and fair knowledge. Try to clear your mind, understand the responsibility and try to write whatever edits you make. Thank you. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

We have RS supporting this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Edward Zigma I am not even disputing the mention of the Jai Shri Ram slogan. Do you have any reliable source which explicitly states that Allah-u-Akbar slogans were NOT raised during the riots? If not, continuing this discussion is really meaningless and you should simple revert your edit. Bharatiya29 17:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how this work. I have cited highly reliable articles. Do you have articles which are on same par with this. Which state how other slogans were raised instead of mentioning one two selective incident. Cite the articles. Editors will compare it. But please stop editing POVs, this is not Indian media where no word has any accountability. This is wikipedia and we have to maintain its decorum now.Edward Zigma (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do Riots Have Goals

The list of goals must be removed. Riots do not have fixed goals. --Nimrodindia (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Well yes they can do, and RS say these have.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Role of external gangs and ammunition

Times of India and Hindustan times had both mentioned articles regarding the alleged involvement of external gangs and also that 500 rounds of ammunition had been used in the duration of this attack. Would these matters can also be included in this article? I am aware that a previous user had also mentioned these links, but his request had been rejected for POV pushing. Aswin8 (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The TOI article is clearly a reliable source. I wonder how can one associate it with POV pushing. Can you provide a link to the exact edit that was made, so that it can be reconsidered by the community? Bharatiya29 15:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't a reverted edit, but it was mentioned by User:Spasiba5 mid-way through the talk page section regarding "Role of Tahir Hussain". A thing to be noted however is that user had given biased comments regarding his views there, that's why it was disregarded then. Aswin8 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

There's no need to ping Spasiba5 as they have been topic banned and are unable to respond. El_C 17:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I always have this question about TOI but why do they never seem to include an actual author or editorial information when they publish something controversial? It's always under "TNN" with no indication of what background went into it. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I see this in several Indian publications. Fear of reprisal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

For TOI it's not even just controversial stuff that they do this, but I can count on one hand in the last 365 days the times I've come across a TOI article with an actual author. The rest are just like this. There is a lot of WP:CHURNALISM surrounding TOI (and Deccan Chronicle) in particular, imo. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that to be RS it has to be independent. There may also be issues of not news and primary here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Reliability isn't dependent on being *independent* for the same reason WP:SPS can be reliable. But in many cases, I doubt the integrity of ToI, usually when it comes to reporting about individuals, especially celebrities. I suspect a lot of pay-for-pub from them and at the very least, a lack of fact checking (ie. pushed press press releases). I could give dozens of examples of articles I've AFD'd which appeared in ToI thanks to push PR but were factually incorrect. But alas, a discussion for a different place. Praxidicae (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

But we have to (for example) use SPS (and other none independent sources) with care (for example not for "facts").Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure and particularly in this case, I think anything TOI (or any media outlet) that doesn't readily identify their editorial staff and author of such pieces should not be regarded as reliable or factual. I personally do not understand how we as editors can rely on a source, especially at that length and subject, that the author can't even stand behind by signing their name to it. Praxidicae (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Should "circumcised" be wikilinked?

The sentence is: In some other instances, Muslim males who unlike Hindu males are commonly circumcised were forced to show their genitals for identification before being brutalised. It had been wikilinked. But I took it out, the rationale being in the edit summary: "taking out the wikilink for circumcised, as on second thoughts in a graphic description such as that the point of edifying people by clicking out seems in bad taste" Wanted to hear from others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Fowler&fowler, thanks for bringing this up for discussion. Just my opinion, but I think we should probably wikilink it, if it's an unfamiliar word (I don't know if it is or isn't a word in common knowledge). If we have a word X, and it's not a common word, we should wikilink it. That the link might lead to graphic content, in my opinion, is not a reason not to link it, because of WP:NOTCENSORED. Anyone who knows what circumcision is, will already know the graphic description. Anyone who does not know what it is, will not understand the meaning of that sentence at all without knowing what it is–so the graphic description is somewhat necessary to the understanding of the content in our article. Anyway, the sentence itself, in my opinion, describes something that I would call much more "graphic" (forcing people to show their genitals and then assaulting them based on what they look like) than removing the foreskin from a penis. So for me the only question is whether the word "circumcision" is common knowledge or not. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Levivich. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich, SerChevalerie, and Slatersteven: OK, I'll wikilink it again. Just to clarify, I was not saying that the Circumcision page is graphic, but rather that the violence was graphic, and that it would be disrespectful to the victims of that violence to accompany its description with routine encyclopedic education offered by clicking out. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, oh! Sorry, I misunderstood your initial comment. I can understand the concern about the wikilink potentially being distracting from the rest of the sentence. Another suggestion I have is to rewrite the sentence slightly and put the "Muslim males are more commonly circumcised than Hindu males" content (with wikilink) in an explanatory footnote? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Footnotes are relatively rare in Wikipedia articles. The page in question has two only footnotes, compared to 190 references. Devoting an entire footnote to circumcision would draw attention to itself and implicate WP:UNDUE. NedFausa (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Terrorist incidents in India

I will take a dim view of any further edit warring over the insertion/removal of this category. Please expand on your concerns here. Pinging: D4iNa4, Edward Zigma, Aman.kumar.goel. El_C 18:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I realise you didn't ping me in, but just confirming that I don't believe that category applies here - it does not (or, perhaps more appropriately, the large majority of multiple sets of related incidents) don't meet either the common or Indian definitions of terrorism. Nor is there a majority reliable source consensus indicating such. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I mistaken it for another catrgory. I thought he removed Violence against Muslims in India I cant see that here. Terrorist one doesnt apply, nut this one must.Edward Zigma (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Glad we've reached resolution — I'm limited by being uninvolved, but like Nosebagbear, I admit that it also struck me as rather odd. El_C 05:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article

Title change from "North East Delhi riots" to "2020 New Delhi Riots" or "2019-20 New Delhi Region Riots" or "CAA protest Delhi Violence"

Here are the reasons for title change:-

1) Several locations of Wikipedia referring to "NE Delhi riots" are titled "2020 Delhi Violence". For example (a)

2) Riots are not confined to NE district. Riots are happening throughout delhi since 12/2019.

3) Popular media titles are "Delhi riots" or "Delhi violence". Only wikipedia has "NE Delhi" title. (1) (2) (3)

4) Wikipedia has always used "YYYY City-Name Riot" format. See the list [[16]]

5) There no article covering Delhi riots incidents outside NE district. A new article would become a super set of current article.

In Summary, "YYYY City-Name Riot" is accurate, popular and follows wikipedia norm. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOYEAR and a recent discussion at Talk:JNU_attack#Year_in_title --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Previous thread on title

• Previous thread on the topic from archive at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_1#Title
• The proposal of Delhi Riots is not acceptable since 1. This is only happening in NE delhi, 2. there are many many riots over the years in Delhi. We will need to add year in that case. Currently, the media and news are using NE Delhi riots/ NE Delhi clashes/ NE Delhi violence. so we can drop the year. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article

• Don't know about this - the talk page discussions are long and unclear, but the title is surely wrong - we should follow the usual style with 2020 New Delhi riots, or certainly not this. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Johnbod, the incidents did not happen in New Delhi. New delhi is in the center of Delhi state, while the incidents happen in 12 police stations in NE Delhi. So your title is misleading and incorrect. Media sources are using North East Delhi violence/riots/clashes. hence this title was used. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  How about 2020 Delhi riots? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC) PS Or 2020 North East Delhi riots? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  Fowler&fowler, it was not spread over Delhi. Only one lok sabha constituency . (12 Police station out of around 400) So the dab North East, is useful and also used widely by Media. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  No doubt locally, yes. But the riots have got huge international attention, without being referred to with the North East. I take your point about "New", but 2020 Delhi riots cannot be said to be ambiguous or unclear. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  2020 North East Delhi riots is useful but as per the naming policy, WP:NOYEAR, disambiguation "2020" can be droppped if the incident is unique in history. and This one North East Delhi riots is unique. I will start redirects to cover these titles though as they are valid search terms. The title Delhi riot implies that it was spread over entire state of delhi, which is not the case here. Hence my objection. The redirects do cover it ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  I can't be bothered to deal with the fine points of title policy, but surely, when India's capital region is as big as it is, and has a population larger than that of most countries, a more specific title is not a bad thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

All local media etc. the HIndu, the Indianexpress and the NDTV call it delhi violence not "riot" please see https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-violence-day-6-live-updates/article30939906.ece https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-northeast-violence-maujpur-babarpur-jaffrabad-mustafabad-6293445/ https://www.ndtv.com/topic/delhi-violence 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2020 Delhi riots — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

---

North East Delhi riots → 2020 Delhi riots – Per WP:COMMONNAME and discussion above. About 1,50,000 results for "North East Delhi riots" while there are "97,10,000" results for "2020 "Delhi riots"" per https://news.google.com/

Page had been already moved by Jethwarp but was swiftly reverted back to this inferior title. Wareon (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support Sources clearly state that a number of parts in Delhi and individuals residing outside NE Delhi were responsible for the violence,[17] and areas outside NE Delhi were affected by riots as they also had to go through same aftermath such as school shutdowns.[18][19] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 07:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per above Aswin8 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support There is a WP:NOYEAR policy. So It should be "Delhi riots" because all wikipedia articles about india riots cover entire geographic area which comes under 1 jurisdiction. Examples: "1992 Bombay riots" or "2002 Gujarat Riots" but ["2020 New Delhi violence"] misleadingly redirects to ["North East Delhi riots"]. This article is omitting major riots incidents which occurred in South delhi & other areas.All this riots have same underlying cause and same set of protesters, counter-protesters and organizer under same delhi commissioner jurisdiction. Even the persons arrested in south delhi riots are connected with north-east delhi protest/counter-protest and vice-verse. Unbiasedpov (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - and also give the redirects the same level of protection as the article has, to prevent POV forks, as is evidently being discussed off-wiki by malcontents. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support — but I prefer the title, "CAA protest Delhi Violence"—17:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs)
• Support for obvious , stated already. Won't repeat for sake of brevity. Please don't make Wiki a place for political wars. Quite unfortunate. Devopam (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support It is happening in the heart of Delhi. Abishe (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• In my view just naming the page Delhi riots is enough per WP:CONCISE, since we don't need "2020" to disambiguate which riots they are (no other title contains "Delhi riots"). 94.21.238.148 (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC) Copied from my talk page — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I had earlier moved the page to 2020 Delhi riots - not aware that Requested Move discussion is going on. Jethwarp (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Berlindian (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Per others, a nobrainer. The vast majority of international sources are calling them "Delhi riots." Also, because of this un-straightforward page name, the Wikipedia article has dropped to third or fourth rank in Google serches instead of its usual first. This is page move seems to have unanimous support, I would support a swift close as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support The scope of the article should also be broadened to include all realted incidents. Prabodh 19:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note I have only just read the other comments. If some of those people think after changing to 2020 Delhi riots, this page is going to have even one word extra than it already does, one POV generalization of the violence, they have a thing coming. It will not. They should clearly understand that. This was targeted violence against Muslims in which two-thirds of the deaths were Muslim. The fact does not change just because the page name might be changing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per nomination. I searched for 2020 Delhi riots and got redirected here and then saw this discussion 😂. Brown Chocolate (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

End date - 29 February

As per the discussion at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_4#Put_End_Date, we had set the end date in the infobox as 29 February. Subsequently, with no fresh info found of rioting on 1 March, I have removed the section for that date (and moved any relevant info, as explained here [20]). Dilbaggg and others, please note. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie stop adding WP:OR contents. No source gives the end date on February 29, it just states the situation "started normalizing". Do nnot go adding personal views. Restored previous version, as some incidents were reported on March 1 and no further incidents reported since. And SerChevalerie before editing in future check out WP:OR policy. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, With your edits [21] and [22], you have broken WP:1RR. Kindly self revert until consensus has been achieved.

Additionally, you keep accusing me of original research. The sources I provided in Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_4#Put_End_Date do not indicate that there were any violent incidents reported on 1 March, NOR does the source in the "1 March" section in the article mention anything about violence on 1 March - it simply talks about bodies being found (the other source talks about a peace march being held). You say that "some incidents were reported on March 1" - kindly provide WP:RS for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Well there were some rumors of violence on March 1 evening after which the police told via social media not to pay attention to rumors. Since then the situation has been cooled down. I have added the information on my final edit with source. Since tensions were reported up to the date March 1, I feel information up to that day should be included. Also it was on March 1 that the police announced "there was absolute peace in their areas" which finally signaled the official ending of the riots. No such declaration before that statement. Source: [23] Dilbaggg (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Good point, I remember deliberately overlooking this as they were simply "rumours", and no actual cases of violence. Some points for us editors to ponder upon:

1. Mere "rumours" were reported on 1 March, following which the police formally announced that the riots had ended. Does that mean the riots officially ended on 29 Feb or 1 Mar?

2. If we do preserve the section on "1 March", is the information about the bodies found on the date relevant to the discussion? More bodies were found later, too (and some might argue that there are bodies yet to be found).

3. Same as above, is the information about the peace march in Jaffrabad relevant to the "Timeline" of the riots? While removing the section, I had moved this bit of info to the section "Local opposition to the riots", where all other such cases have been added.

Inviting other editors to opine so that we achieve a consensus. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, well I will accept the decision of majority editors. Thank you for considering the matter SerChevalerie. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lets keep this simple, provide a quote where a source says the riots are in fact over.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Currently moving the text here and reverting the changes. We can add it back after consensus has been achieved regarding the above points (Infobox still reflects end date as 1 March):

1 March

On 1 March, three more corpses were found, increasing the number of dead in the riots to 46. Two of the bodies were found in Bhagirathi Vihar canal while another was found in a canal at Gokalpuri. Muslim and Hindu residents of Jaffrabad organised a peace march together. After some unconfirmed rumors of violence on March 1, The Delhi police announced that there was now absolute peace on the areas.

References

SerChevalerie (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Have expanded the section on the page since then. Looks like the end date is confirmed to be 1 March, as per this source, in which one more case of a shop being burned in "Welcome area" is mentioned. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased

This article seems extremely biased. This post made reference of Kapil Mishra for his statement but forget to mention the hate speeches of Amanatullah Khan, Manish sisodiya, Sonia Gandhi, Leftist like Swara Bhaskar, Kunal Kamra etc who instigated the violence. Also, this article failed to keep a neutral view while writing. Please don't use Wikipedia for your agenda. I will edit this article if it is allowed. I know anyone can edit Wikipedia. But I have seen much of the edits of other writers are revised only to costume their agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyam Seth (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources for your allegations against "Leftist" politicians? Also do involve in the discussions in previous topics regarding whether or not this article is biased. Aswin8 (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Aswin, Thanks for the reply. I have replied with the authenticated sources. please have a look on mentioned examples and if required I can provide more.

Sonia Gandhi gave a call for "aar par ki ladai", she said. 'now we have to decide, choose your side'. “It is duty of all of us to come out of our houses and do andolan,” Sonia Gandhi had said in a speech. She had called the anti-CAA protests “aar-paar ki ladai”. the Congress party leaders themselves indulged in spreading fear painting the situation as their “last chance”.

Now let's see whose hands are stronger -- ours or those killers. - Mani Shankar

police is killing unarmed Muslims, worst fears had already come true, and a time had come when uniformed personnel were indiscriminately killing unarmed Muslims and looting their properties, abusing them, just because they eat non-vegetarian food. - Swara Bhaskar

CAA-NRC was brought so that Muslim men could be stopped from procreating and increasing their population - Sushant Singh

(Video link is available at youtube)

"this fight will not be won in Supreme Court. Because we have already seen Supreme Court judgement in matters of NRC, Ayodhya.. In all these issues the Supreme Court did not protect the ideals of humanity, equality and secularism” - Harsh Mandar

“After CAA, Muslims will not be allowed to sport a beard or skullcap” - Amanatullah khan see the video

“Fifteen crore Muslims will overpower 100 crore Hindus” - Waris Pathan---- Divyam Seth (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is not really an RS for "authenticated" facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Slatersteven for reply . Apart from video posted on twitter there are many reliable sources which I have provided to prove my points.Divyam Seth (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Your second link appears to be to an article published before the riots even started. I also note that many of your sources say this is the BJP saying this, not that it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Most of the links of the articles I have provided are hate speeches before riots. these are the hate speeches which fuels the riots and that's my point here. Your 2nd point ' many of your sources say this is the BJP saying this' , nope, none of the point has been said by BJP in my above links. Divyam Seth (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I find it impossible to correct the narrative especially when someone has a full-time job and other commitments. You suggesting some contents for your review as I have seen mostly one-sided stories so far on wiki pages

• Two things stand out in this move: first, OHCHR’s complete blindness to the rampant violation of human rights by India’s immediate neighbours, namely Pakistan and Bangladesh—violations because of which the minority population in these two countries have decreased drastically, unlike in India where various minority communities have been thriving, as obvious from their burgeoning numbers; and second, the abysmal ignorance of the UN body, for it comes across as uneducated in its inability to read and understand a law which is all about expediting the citizenship of minorities fleeing from persecution in the three Muslim majority countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and is not about taking away the citizenship of Indian Muslims.
• Another video of hate monger Harsh Mander surfaces clearly saying issue can only be resolved on streets
• Umar Khalid speech on 17th Feb in Amravati. Listen to this from 14:00-14:40 min. He is appealing to people to come out on streets in huge number when Trump arrives in India on 24th. What happened in Delhi was planned a week in advance?
• A Muslim woman candidly admit, in front of DelhiPolice, her husband force her to go and sit at #AntiCAA dharna/protests site
• Mahmud Pracha, Legal advisor of Shaheen Bagh and lawyer of Bhim Army Chief asking “Muslims to sell their property and jewellery and buy GUNS, for self-defence”
• Wife of DCP Amit Sharma, who was critically injured in the anti-CAA Islamist mob attack says that women invited DCP for talks, surrounded him and initiated attack on him and were soon joined by men armed with hockey sticks, iron rods, knives and pistols. . Here is the video of this incident - clearly how Mob word is used to hide the identify the real culprits
• Delhi violence: Head Constable explains how he controlled Shahrukh, man who pointed gun at him
• AAP leader Tahir Hussain leading the riots from his house
• Outdated but still good for reading different PoV - https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/muslim-persecution-of-hindus-in-india-the-story-you-wont-see-in-the-western-mainstream-media

Rkb76in (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rkb76in, please acquaint yourself with our guidelines to reliable sources. El_C 17:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

References

El_C, Those tweets have Videos embedded in it, just not comments from random people. And others are from news outlets. Rkb76in (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Videos are not reliable sources either. Please use newspaper sources only, and avoid opinion columns unless they are from recognizable scholars. In any case, your comments should go at the article talk page, not here. I am not involved with the page at this time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, El_C, Based on your feedback, I have updated the references. Thanks!! Rkb76in (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Rather than a wall of dubious (sometimes) source can you please actually suggest what kind of edit you want made to address this perceived bias?Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven This long page is protected and already written in very very biased mode. I just dont want to copy the whole page and suggest edits. It might be easy if I can edit in small paragraphs and mods can agree or disagree with it. Rkb76in (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Or you could post those paragraphs here for discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems I let someone win and let it a pass. Thanks and all the best!! Rkb76in (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)