Jump to content

Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Confused

I just noticed "in the Indian capital's deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot since 1950." Where did this come from? What source says that? And how are we calling it a "Hindu-Muslim riot?" Most sources call it (chiefly) a targeting killing of Muslims. I'm perplexed that people are not improving the main body, only arguing about the lead. It takes a while for an article like this to settle. The sources have not matured yet. Besides the sources that I have listed upstairs have hardly been used. I'm not sure what is going on here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found nothing supporting that line, remove.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The death toll shows 36 Muslims and 15 Hindus dead. There are also a few urls showing Hindus being targeted in the riots. (https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/five-more-held-for-ib-staffer-ankit-sharma-s-murder/story-yvTPp3uxvcV6qmn9r3RUiN.html), (https://www.huffingtonpost.in/entry/hindu-couple-delhi-riots_in_5e65e917c5b6670e72fa8500). Of course, neither strongly prove that they were targeted because of their religion, but given that 3 out of 10 deaths were of Hindus, it may be incorrect to remove the statement without an extensive discussion. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Read wp:v and wp:or, any statement (unless the sky is blue levels of obviousness) must be sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
It was added in this edit by a banned user. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The death toll data is right in the infobox, and the “3 out of 10” is math. Given this information, I believe that “Hindu-Muslim riot” is a more appropriate term, even though media doesn’t show it (probably due to bias? Every now and then, I see someone conservative or the other bashing prestigious newspapers, which Wikipedia calls as reliable sources, and says those papers support Muslims, though I am not so about their (the conservatives’) truthfulness). RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Or maybe because its not true, and many of the death were self defence, or accidents or... but that is the point of wp:or, your speculation or assumptions do not trump mine.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Pretty sure I had reverted all his edits, this one must have slipped past me. Nominate to remove the line. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
For those who are nickel and diming the official death numbers, there are many Muslims who have remaining missing. Obliterated from life and records. The lead says that. I second the nomination. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Sources which have termed the riots as “Hindu-Muslim”:
Here, Reuters, Associated Press and NYT did note that both Hindus and Muslims had resorted to violence (though they focused on the Hindus committing the majority of crimes). Can you please explain why the fact that both sides resorted to violence does not imply that the riot is a Hindu-Muslim riot? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Clashes and riots are not the same thing, and what about "since 1950"? One side can riot, and the other can defend themselves... both would be using violence.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at their considered views, two weeks after the violence, not during or immediately after when information on the ground was confusing and incomplete. After all, we don't say, the number of fatalities was 27, or 32. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, in that case I've no objection (given that it’s common knowledge that BJP did 90% of the instigation) against removing the statement. But maybe we should note that both sides resorted to violence (one mostly because they’re misguided jerks, the other for self-defense) somewhere in the lead? RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
We do in the second line, and the third.Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It’s just said that the attacks were chiefly done by Hindus. A reader with little knowledge of the subject may not infer that Muslims retaliated, and can get the wrong idea. But in para 3 of the lead, it is said that both sides did attack with equal lethality without any prior statements that Muslims even retaliated. In my opinion, the first para (Or second) should explicitly state that both sides resorted to violence since the first para should have most of the basic information. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
And "he dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted in the Indian capital's deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot since 1950" (ironically the very line you are defending).Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
That’s the seventh line on my screen (iPad). 🤦 I really should read entire sections instead of what’s pointed at before commenting... Let’s finish this and replace that sentence with “The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen other Hindus.” since that leaves no ambiguity (for few types of people whom I've personally seen who’ll somehow screw up in interpreting these statements without the “other”) over whether the policeman and intelligence officer were Hindus as well. But that leaves 13 other Hindus, so is “over a dozen” appropriate even if there is just one more than a dozen? Tell you what, just rephrase the statement to have less ambiguity when you remove the “deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot” claim. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
This only about removing "in the Indian capital's deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot since 1950.", so yes lets do that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Remove "deadliest Hindu-Muslim riots since 1950" but don't remove "Hindu-Muslim riots". And to make the lead neutral, we must remove such phrases like "violence chiefly against Muslims" from the very first line. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: As the edit, "in the Indian capital's deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot since 1950," was made without consensus by a user who now stands banned for operating multiple accounts, we very likely do not need a long discussion to remove it. Re-adding it, or any part of it, however, will require a new consensus. Pinging @Abecedare:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Since I was pinged: I did a quick-check and the sentence does seem to be supported by the cited source. This WaPo article, which says It was the deadliest Hindu-Muslim violence in the Indian capital since at least 1950, when reliable figures became available. and which in turn cites this column by Ashutosh Varshney, who says, These statistics show that the recent riots — let me call them Delhi 2020 — are Delhi’s biggest Hindu-Muslim riots since 1950. Am I missing something here?
  • Note that my comment should not be read as an admin diktat for retaining the claim. Just a call for more careful checking of (especially, more recent) literature and a discussion over whether the sentence should be retained, removed or modified in any way. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
As its behind a paywall I could not check the post.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I did read Joanna Slater and Neha Masih's article in WaPo. This is because soon thereafter I added both the original sentence and the citation. Although I do not now recall the sentence "It was the deadliest Hindu-Muslim violence in the Indian capital since at least 1950, when reliable figures became available," I can reconstruct the likely reasons for my not including that characterization or statistic in the article. They would run something along the lines of:

"This was the opinion of an academic, Varshney, which the Washington Post quoted by way of a link. It is on par with using the word "pogram" for the 2020 Delhi riots, for the inclusion of which pressure was being brought to bear at that time, also citing Varshney. We did not choose the latter characterization because it was minority usage. It would be useful at this time to also describe the approach to editing which was employed at the time: when prose was being added, a sentence might have had a specific citation, but its paraphrasing generally reflected a wider view—among reports in foreign newspapers which had reporters on the ground in Delhi. Neither the word "pogrom," not a characterization of the "worst violence since 1950" had garnered wide use among these reports. So, there was no reason to include it."

More generally, tracking riots in Delhi, especially "Hindu-Muslim riots,"—which is a generic term in India for any violence in which Hindus and Muslims are involved, and can be applied even to violence in which all perpetrators are Hindus and all victim Muslims (if the latter have offered any resistance)—is a fraught issue. The benchmark against which all later violence is compared is the killing of Muslims in Delhi after September 1947 (following the arrival of Hindu refugees from West Punjab). Furthermore, the seizing of Muslim properties (especially in Old Delhi), and the use of other forms of intimidation, reduced the percentage of Muslims in Delhi from 40% in the 1941 census to 6% in that of 1951. So WaPo's sentence, "It was the deadliest Hindu-Muslim violence in the Indian capital since at least 1950," would elicit the question, "How much before 1950 might we be insinuating? 1949? 1948? ... but obviously not 1947, for in comparison to the violence—which eventually cost Gandhi his life in January 1948—this riot, or any other intervening form of anti-Muslim violence, was a walk in the park for Muslims. Also, Varshney, a political scientist, who has indeed done some work on ethnic conflict between Hindus and Muslims in India, is nonetheless not a scholar of the violence, especially of the 1940s, or of resettlement thereafter, as are scholars such as (off the top of my head) Ian Talbot, Mushril Hasan, Joya Chatterjee, Gyanendra Pandey, Sarah Ansari, Urvashi Butalia, Hamza Alavi, Gurharpal Singh, ...
So, these would have been my reasons for not including that sentence fragment, which I view to be an opinion. If people want to say, the worst religiously motivated violence in Delhi in decades, which is the headline of that very WaPo story, I don't have any issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need to debate whether the Delhi riots were Hindu-Muslim riots or not? There are enough sources to state that people from both the communities were involved in the violence. Though the casualties were higher on Muslim side, but 15 Hindus killed isn't a small number that can simply be ignored.--Yoonadue (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In the mature, considered, view, written with the hindsight of two weeks or more, most knowledgeable third-party sources—i.e. Delhi-based reporting in print media from foreign liberal democracies whose culture does not have preconceived notions about this violence—do not describe it as "Hindu-Muslim" riots, only violence against Muslims. Please examine the sources I have collected above painstakingly. That particular edit, by a banned user, found its way into the text when no one was looking, not as the result of a consensus, as required. For that reason alone, it needs to be removed. Otherwise, why are we wasting our time with belabored discussions? We too can bring down an avalanche of harum-scarum edits on this page during which all sorts of POV text can be snuck in. After all, perpetrators can be killed even during a pogrom, a deliberate, planned, targeted killing of an ethnic or religious group. And this was not quite a pogrom.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: In this threat itself, atleast 4 sources from the so-called liberal democracies have been provided which describe the violence as Hindu-Muslim riots but you still want more discussion about it. Banned user doesn't mean that all his edits become illegitimate. If we have an RS which support the statement, there is no point in removing it.--Yoonadue (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
I've said repeatedly, "with the hindsight of a couple of weeks." At first, everyone was calling it "Hindu-Muslim riots." But reporting on a story evolves as journalists dig deeper, get more details. It is that mature judgment that is summarized in the lead sentence sentence. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the articles about "Religious violence in India" and "Persecution of Hindus" *(India section only)* can be added to the See Also section of this article as that would be adding to the continuity for the main topic of this article (religious persecution). Thoughts? DogeChungus (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How was this Persecution of Hindus given most of the dead are Muslims?Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
What about the first link? I suppose it's pretty relevant to the riots. Anyways, As the riot was a communal event, that too majorly between Hindus and Muslims, I believe linking to that part of the article in "Persecution of Hindus" would provide some insight to communal events as a whole in India. DogeChungus (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Not seeing it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Could you be more elaborate, please? May I know your opinion about the first link? DogeChungus (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the first link it a better choice. As to "Persecution of Hindus" "Persecution" has a specific meaning, and its not one that is applicable to a riot in which they were not the main victims.Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
That's great to know! Can I proceed to add the first link for now then? DogeChungus (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I seem to recall we had a debate about this a while ago and many such links were removed, I cannot recall if this was one of them but I would rather you waited 24 hours to be on the safe side.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Fine, I guess I'll wait then DogeChungus (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary IMO. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary for me to add the link or for me to wait? DogeChungus (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I second what Slatersteven said above. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
So i believe I can add in Religious violence in India right? DogeChungus (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

Vibhuta (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Fake news about Hindus.

As we all know after announcement of CAA (Citizenship Amendment Bill) the Muslims hijacked Shaheen bagh road for more than 60 days. And then to they kept on trying for small scale fights. At last when the muslims thaught that this small scale riots won't affect India then they planned a big riot what we saw in new. And they also killed IB (Intelligence Bureau) officer Ankit Sharma when he was on a round and was collecting info about what's tha next plan of Muslim mobs. Lucifer125275 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Rrr, we mention the "spy" and there is no agreement he was in fact a spy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lucifer125275: Unless you have reliable sources of the quality I have listed above and speaking to your subject of concern, your post here is no different from WP:SOAPBOXing; it does not help improve the page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Right @lucifer125275 this article is basically fake news. Wikipedia is now being used to legitimize fake news. Sachin.cba (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Sachin.cba This is a contentious issue, with passionate people on each side with views based in ancient religions. Please keep that in mind. Wikipedia is not going to settle disputes or bigotry between Hindus and Muslims here(or vice versa). Wikipedia simply summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and allows the readers to judge that information and the sources for themselves. Unless you or Lucifer125275 have specific changes to propose, there is nothing more to be done here. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@331dot It is only pick and choose from selective sources. For e.g. first line itself says that riot was caused chiefly by Hindus. There are two sources nyt and the guardian. Both do not prove that riots were caused by Hindus. Whereas ample evidences in investigation indicate that muslim extremist groups such as PFI planned, funded and executed the riots. So the line should be that investigation has indicated islamic extremist group PFI funded and planned the riots. Whereas what is written is that riots was caused chiefly by Hindu mobs which is a blatant lie.
Source:https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/3-pfi-members-held-for-alleged-involvement-in-riots-get-bail/article31064872.ece Sachin.cba (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Errr, lets just cover the claim it was pre-planned, being pre-planned by one side does not mean it was still not preliminary carried out by the other in response.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba Please place your posts at the very bottom of this page, for proper flow. If necessary, edit the entire page instead of a single section. You do realize that Muslims likely disagree with your interpretation. That's part of the problem here, passionate believers on each side. We will not solve Hindu-Muslim issues here. Sources are not offered as proof of anything. You are free to disagree with what they say. But that doesn't change what they say. I don't think The Hindu source says what you want it to say. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

331dot The source does mention what investigation has indicated "“As per the pre-planned conspiracy, Umar Khalid gave provocative speeches at various places and appealed to the minority gathering to block roads and other public places during the visit of Donald Trump”. “To achieve this objective, firearms, acid bottles and other dangerous articles were used. As a pre-planned conspiracy,women and children were sent to block Jaffrabad Metro Station to create riot”. This is what has come from investigation and from evidences, not someone's imagination like articles of nyt & the guardian which are not based on evidences. Well, I understand that wikipedia cannot decide what is the truth. But it does decide which source to focus on and in present case, it is relying on blatantly false narratives. Even if you have to use any source, I request you to write facts and not agendas and opinions which are blatantly false. Facts can be cross-checked. Agenda has no basis to it. The present lead has been written based on agenda, not on facts (Sachin.cba (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)).
wp:rs is clear, we assume that an RS has fact checked, its why they are an RS. Also wp:blp and wp:crime are quite clear, we do not say a named individual is guilty until they have been prosecuted and found guilty.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, here facts are against what RS says. So, let us just admit this is plain fake news promotion article. wp:blp and wp:crime are not applicable in this context because nobody is asking to name someone as guilty. (Sachin.cba (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC))
Sorry, a fact is something that is proven, not an unproven allegation, enough now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; we present the sources of information so that readers can examine them and judge them for themselves as to any bias. No one is telling you what to believe, Wikipedia is just summarizing publicly available information from reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The place where they have to use muslim, they use Anti CAA protestor, I find this Delhi riot article biased Akash3149 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

{Wikiquote} template

On 25 May 2020, Vilho-Veli added a {Wikiquote} template leading interested readers to a page containing four quotations from a single source. I reverted Vilho-Veli's addition and in my edit summary requested discussion at this talk page. My concern is that these partisan quotations from Nissim Mannathukkaren, an associate professor at Dalhousie University in Canada, without a single counterbalancing quotation from a different viewpoint, skew the article space in a way that would likely be rejected as violating WP:NPOV if a user added Mannathukkaren's uncontradicted quotations directly to 2020 Delhi riots. NedFausa (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, all quotes of notable people are welcome at wikiquote - also the different viewpoints. We don't care who's "right" or "wrong".Vilho-Veli (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Vilho-Veli: it may be true in theory that, as you say, all quotes of notable people are welcome at wikiquote - also the different viewpoints. But in practice that is not the case here. A single user compiled the page in question and excluded all but one, decidedly not neutral point of view. Until that is remedied, my objection remains. NedFausa (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
As You wish. I'm just linking ALL the new articles of wikiquote if the creator hasn't done it.Vilho-Veli (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
While links to Wikimedia sister projects are always welcome, NedF makes a good point. If some balance can be achieved on the Wikiquote article, then restoring it here shouldn't be an issue. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

The line "chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" some how holds one community responsible, while CBI reports say that foreign elements are involved.So as it is not clear that who started the riot ,writing one sided report is not right. Aslo write "a hindu IB officer was stabbed 6 times" and please do not write "a dozen" .They aren't objects. 27.60.215.99 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Please offer independent reliable sources to support your claims. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As already answered above. @331dot: please next time make sure you mark this as answered. If you want, you may also use the same script I am using to facilitate matters. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
RandomCanadian My understanding was that it was not "answered" until the request was resolved, which it wasn't yet. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: If the request could not be done and you require further input from the original poster then it should be marked as "answered" (for the time being) until the OP responds with said further input, so as not to divert attention from actually unanswered requests - see Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Further_information_needed. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

Most of the information mentioned in this article are false and mis-represented. So I would like to edit this article with true and correct information. Riot was started by Muslim community by burning two wheelers, cars, shops and petrol pumps. After that police initiated action against them and leaders from both communities provoked people to kill each other. Crctc (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes Crctc (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
  • You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2020

This Whole Page Needs to be rewritten considering the Police Investigation of Delhi Riot Case appearing in Newspapers like Times of India and Edit Protection granted should be IMMEDIATELY REMOVED. DM Prabhudesai ([[User talk:DMPrabhudesai|talk) 00:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: DM Prabhudesai Please consult the protecting administrator Anachronist if you want the article's protection level to be reduced. Otherwise,
  1. Wait until September 28 when protection expires, or the recommended way
  2. Be extended confirmed (500 edits and 30 days)
  3. Make a draft, and submit another EPER linking to your draft, and it'll be accepted if it's good. {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Change mentioning of "Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janta" Party back to "Bharatiya Janta Party" as the former name is driven by anti-BJP sentiments Abhayy1912 (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2020 (2)

Mentioning of Bharatiya Janta Party as Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janta Party is guided by an anti-BJP sentiment. Abhayy1912 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Abhayy1912, please refer to WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE. We base our statements on what reliable sources say, and they overwhelmingly call the BJP "Hindu nationalist". SerChevalerie (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2020 (3)

27.62.97.253 (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC) entire article was false need to edit
 Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:
  • If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four 30 days after account registration if you make at least 10 500 constructive edits to other pages.
  • If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
  • You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
  • You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    @SerChevalerie: Just to kindly let you know, the article is under ECP, not SP, so it would be "If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four 30 days after account registration if you make at least 10 500 constructive edits to other pages." {{replyto|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 18:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Can I Log In, noted and corrected, thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2020 (4)

Kindly give details as per the police report and the as per the original evidences filed in the court.. please dont give articles from news paper reference.. lot of newspapers are biased and write report as per the management polices..so at least in these political matters depend on orginal evidence submitted in court.. 2409:4073:2E83:9F48:0:0:BC8:F707 (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read wp:rs and wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: Currently the police has only filed chargesheets, which adding to this article would amount to WP:RECENTISM. Going forward, we will add only the final court convictions, or only similarly significant developments. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

"Chants were heard of "Jai Shri Ram" ("Victory to Lord Rama"), a slogan", Citation to the source has NO evidence. It makes it appear like a tabloid. This needs to be removed to avoid accusation to one group. 2601:600:9D7F:E0D0:90FB:13D7:2BF0:C0BF (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The point of being an RS we we assume they have checked.Slatersteven (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: It's right there in the cited source, in a quotation from an eyewitness. The quotation is in the citation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The article on delhi riots is truly bull shit and fair.

All what are written is not true . Everything what are written i thing that all imagination of the so called pseudo liberals. And they are trying to present misinformation without going through the ground reality. True&believe (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read [[wp:npa].Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
True&believe Wikipedia does not deal in "truth", as truth is in the eye of the beholder, but in what can be verified, see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. The sources are provided so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to their accuracy or bias. If those sources are incorrect, you need to take that up with them. If you have independent reliable sources that are not currently in this article, please offer them.
This is a contentious issue, with strong feelings on each side based in ancient religions. We will not solve any religious conflict here, which is why we focus on what independent reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The intro is laughably POV

The intro is laughably POV... I found myself laughing out loud at the bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.213.157 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

What changes do you suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020 (2)

103.100.7.129 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Delhi anti hindu riots were pre-planned by radical islamic forces and certain anti India interest groups. These includes ISIS , PAKISTAN ISI and certain dirty Indian politicians who became completely irrelevant. Because in today's India people started hating the people's who divide the society on basis of religion, region, caste etc.

 Not done, please state your changes in a clear, "change X to Y" format, with sufficient reliable sources to back them up. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020 (3)

103.100.7.129 (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Delhi anti hindu riots were prominently happened in Muslim majority areas only. AAP leader Tahir Hussain , Rajdhani School owner Faisal Farooq ,Umar Khalid, Left leaning radical group Pijra Tod etc are some of master mind's of anti hindu riots of Delhi. Casualties of both sides happened only for one reason because these Muslim mobs don't have any dress code. They were on top of some mosques , some prominent buildings like Tahir Hussain building, Rajdhani School building etc but they are also on the streets. Anybody can simply justify all this because a number of video footages are available. Brutal murders of IB officer Ankit Sharma who was giving output against this conspiracy and Dilber Negi etc on the other hand casualties of mobs itself by slim short guns proofs what happened .

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Pulkitraina2608 (talk) 11:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Theres a line in the first para saying something like "caused majorly by Hindus attacking muslims". This is a blatant lie and propaganda. There were clashes from both sides beginning with the Hindus being attacked first by the rioters and then them responding even bigger

its what RS claim.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The paragraph phrase you are listing has two reliable sources attached to it. There is no justification that shows it is a blatant lie and propaganda. Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 19:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2020 (2)

those riots were done by muslims in which a intelligence bureau offficer ankit sharma is murdererd and as per the chargesheet of delhi police those riots were done by tabit hussain a member of legislative Assembly of aam aadmi party which is ruling party of delhi state, so stop spreading hinduphobia} - 2409:4043:211e:f76e:d2e:f812:b4a1:5991

I suggest you look through the archives and ask yourself why there was so much arguing over whether or not ankit sharma was an intelligence officer. Also a charge sheet is not an RS for anything other than an accusation. - Slatersteven
 Not done: As mentioned, a chargesheet does not prove anyone guilty. In the future, please back up your suggested changes with WP:RS. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Chargesheet

Police has filed a charge sheet that gives a completely different picture than what's mentioned in this article Peter Lim 870 (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter Lim 870, we have not added the same due to WP:RECENTISM. Then again, some of it seems significant, so if sufficient consensus is achieved, we may add some of the more historically relevant facts. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
At least you can mention that charge sheet has been filed. Right now the article looks biased and as such its likely to lose credibility. I am suggesting this from neutral point of view. Peter Lim 870 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Peter Lim 870, the article's credibility remains, please suggest what specific text you would like to be added from the chargesheet (backed with reliable sources), and if we achieve consensus on the same then we may add it to the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I just want you to add. Police charge sheet has been filed that gives a different picture
You may use similar phrase but this above is a fact and at this moment, the above information is credible and can be verified. Peter Lim 870 (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Peter Lim 870, please back up your statements with WP:RS as requested. "gives a different picture" than what? In whose opinion? Please also see WP:NPOV. Thank you. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me out as I am new to Wikipedia. Basically,

1 - The charge sheet is now in public domain and has been filed 2 - Information in the CS is contradictory to what's mentioned.

"Filing Of A Charge Sheet" is a fact "Contents are in contradiction" is a fact Peter Lim 870 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Peter Lim 870 Wikipedia works on the principle of WP:VERIFIABILITY - everys single statement in the article is backed up with a reliable source. If you are unable to provide the info in this manner, then you will just have to wait for a more experienced editor to do so. In the meantime, you may familiarise yourself with Wikipedia and editing through the links shared on your talk page. Happy editing! SerChevalerie (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Please read wp:primary.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for change of sources in the first line of the article

I am not debating that the line "and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" is true or not. The problem is that the Guardian source is chiefly about role of police during the violence rather than the mob and The New York Times article is about how BJP's nationalist policies led to this. However no article specifically mentions that the violence was done chiefly by Hindu mob (I am not saying it is true or not), but they list many instances of violence against Muslims by Hindu mob. The change I want is update of sources to specifically mention that most of the violence was done by Hindu Mob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin75871 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, could you look into this when you have some time? SerChevalerie (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The reason I brought this up is this. The New York Times article does not even mention this line, still it was included to cite the first line of this article, which itself is very controversial. The Guardian article does mention "... 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.", but the article is predominantly about police brutality and the only context given for this line is that more Muslims were killed in comparison to Hindus. Again, I am not contesting the validity of this line, but the support of reliable sources in relation to it. I strongly think that as this is a very controversial statement among Indians, several reliable sources should be mentioned. Also, why was The New York Times article was mentioned here and noone noticed it? That article is completely about Modi's and his party's Hindu nationalist policies which led to violence. That article never mentions "violence was chiefly done by Hindu mobs" still it is cited to support this very statement. sachinag (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
It still says it, in words.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Sachin75871, within the existing sources, what wording do you suggest? SerChevalerie (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, my original request was for a review of sources. The reason is because it is the first line of the article and also very controversial so citing it with several reliable sources is important. The NYT article was about a different topic still it was used in this slightly bothers me. I am a fairly new editor so I am still trying to work around all the policies so I don't think I can suggest a fair wording. sachinag (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Sachin75871, could you suggest some sources, then? The NYT source, from which the line is quoted (almost verbatim), has served us well so far. You may refer to § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@SerChevalerie: I just noticed your ping. The Guardian source is fine. The relative clause, "which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims," does not apply only to the proportion of violence which was putatively/supposedly enabled by the police; rather it is about all violence, period. In other words, the sentence could be rephrased with no change in meaning in the following manner: The violence in Delhi which consisted predominately (i.e. chiefly, mainly) of Hindu mobs attacking Muslims has since late February given rise to persistent questions about the role the Delhi police might have played in its enabling. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
PS I consider this matter closed. The editor who opened this thread has not understood the source. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Full Protection removal

Please remove the full protection tag. The content has not achieved a full version and a lot of discussions are going on. And, the article has seen only small vandalism (as far I can see).--Methu1 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose: Firstly, the article is only Extended-confirmed protected and has WP:ACDS enforced on it, it is not fully protected. Secondly, the Talk page itself received multiple WP:ERs just last week, all poor in quality. The Talk page was put under temporary semi-protection after that, which is why they have reduced in number. The main article will invite an exponential amount of vandalism. In any case, if you are concerned about the improvements of this article, you are free to open new discussions here and achieve consensus on them. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SerChevalerie. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As this is preventive, and I suspect if removed we will see it all again.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

Wrong reporting No mention of actual people who killed hindus

Nor do we mention name people ACCUSED of killing Muslim, per wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

A perspective on the investigations led by the Delhi police into the leaders who have instigated these riots must also be included in this article. Key leaders [redacted] who masterminded the killing of a RAW official and dumping of this officials body in a sewer canal needs to be mentioned. Samarjitdhar (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not donePlease specify the text that you would like added and offer the independent reliable sources you have to support the text. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

171.50.191.250 (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
What is your request?Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2020

All information which have written are wrong and targeting hindu community. infact, truth is that it was a planned anti-hindu riots in that many hindu familys and migrant labours had been bruetly killed by muslim mob. many area also had been burned by muslim mob. they were attacking by acid, stones, big gulels, guns, swards all have provided by Tahir Hussain. tahir hussain is alleged for murder of Ib officer bruety murder which had done in his own house. I think wikipidia should find trurth evedence before publishing any article and it should be monitor also for avoid spread wrong information. प्रत्यक्ष (talk) 06:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

प्रत्यक्ष Please read WP:TRUTH; we don't deal in "truth", as everyone has their own idea as to what the truth is. We deal in what can be verified in independent reliable sources. This allows readers to see and evaluate the independent reliable sources to judge for themselves as to what they believe. Undoubtedly at least some Muslims feel the opposite of you. This event has passionate supporters on each side, with views based in ancient religions with conflict between them. Because of this, it is important to focus on what the sources state. We are not going to solve this religious strife here. The sources are stating what it in the article currently. If you have specific suggestions for changes, and have sources to support them, please propose those specific changes here. 331dot (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, whose POV should we consider, the uninvolved ones are best. Also there is an odd obsession with the death of one person, out of 53 people.Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

BLP

I would ask before anyone posts any more post to read wp:blp and wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

False information riots were started by mumslim by attaching peaceful hindus.....this tottally illegal artigle as this is now under a judicial review, chargsheet alteady submitted by Delhi Police which clearly shows that Riots were initiated by Mumslims led by a [redacted] Tahir Hussain 223.188.142.181 (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the declined requests above. Also be aware of no legal threats. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_13&oldid=963686248"