Jump to content

Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Photos

Pictures of North East Delhi Riots.

I have many pictures regarding North East Delhi Riots. Those who can edit the article North East Delhi riots they can use these pictures in this article.

  • Delhi Riots 2020
    Delhi Riots 2020
  • North East Delhi Riots
    North East Delhi Riots
  • North East Delhi Riots 2020
    North East Delhi Riots 2020
  • North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1)
    North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1)
  • Delhi Riots 2020 (1)
    Delhi Riots 2020 (1)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is how can we verify these are what they claim to be?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven your doubt is right. Actually, I live near to North East Delhi and that's why I clicked these pictures. I am assuring you but sir it's on you that you believe it or not. You can see my uploads [[1]], currently I am uploading only North East Delhi riots pics.

Wow, @Banswalhemant: Wow. That's great you took these pictures. Very sad, but very informative. Do you have any pictures that have GPS information? Also, are these Muslim houses, Hindu houses, Muslim street, Hindu street? All those things will need to be known for balancing the content of the images. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler You and other interested editors should be aware of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion. NedFausa (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the parking garage pictured in the first and last images the same as the "hell" described here or here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can use these pictures.
You can verify these all pictures either by looking at the coordinates or by news. And you can also do reverse search of these pictures this is also very helpful in verification. Thanks for appreciating my work. Hemant Banswal 08:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs)

Edit request for placing a multiple image template in the article

I hope no one has any problems with this. Anything else that needs to be done with this?

One of the affected areas of NE Delhi in Gokal Puri/Dayalpur. Both images reflect the same area. The top image is a clear shot of the same location that is visible in the background of the bottom image, behind the police station, burnt shanties and huts. Note the proximity of the police station to the burnt buidlings.

There is also an invisble comment that reads =
For authenticity, both images have geo-locations to confirm the area that has been captured. The images were taken on 8 March 2020. The area visible is still being patrolled as visible in another uploaded image on commons.
DTM (talk) 07:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: As for your verification problem, these are geo-tagged. Also, the media has covered these location in their own reports. I take all my image with the same mobile, so that can also be seen that I haven't lifted it off the net and changed stuff. All my images are with a Vivo now. DTM (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
As others have no objection use them, but for future reference it is the time, not location, that I considered unverified.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
After reviewing the discussion I'm happy with photos that are just captioned with location and date. Adding material to captions that isn't apparent in the image is the issue. We also shouldn't "note" in an article, ie editors shouldn't tell readers what they should note. Follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Doug Weller, how do we verify that the damage shown in any photograph was caused by the riots? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: good question, without before and after photos I have no idea. I'm here only to say that we can use user-generated photos, but how we use and caption them is a major issue. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have pictures for the anti CAA protest still going on in the affected area of NE Delhi (Jaffrabad)

Does anyone have pictures for the anti CAA protest still going on on the main road in the affected areas of NE Delhi (Jaffrabad)? I was surprised to cross the protest that is still going on in the affected area. Is there any media coverage[1] of this particular one? They have a nice tent and all and posters etc. I couldn't stop to take a picture, but hopefully next time when I go the women will still be there protesting as they are now doing. DTM (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Women From Across Country Pledge Support To Shaheen Bagh Protesters". NDTV. 9 March 2020. Retrieved 9 March 2020. The protesters at Shaheen Bagh were joined by women from Lucknow, where a similar protest is underway for over 50 days, Ghaziabad, Jaffrabad in Delhi.

Authentication

I don't pretend to be a professional photoanalyst, but to my untrained eye, comparison of the images above with reliably sourced near matches confirms their authenticity. On 25 February 2020, the Indian magazine Outlook published a slide gallery as part of its story "Delhi Riots Live Updates: Delhi Police Forms 2 SITs To Probe Violence Cases."

  • The Outlook photo captioned "Security personal [sic] outside a burnt property following clashes over the new citizenship law, in Shiv Vihar" verifies the image above named "North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1)."
  • Another Outlook photo, captioned "Charred remains of vehicles set ablaze by rioters during communal violence over the amended citizenship law, at Shivpuri area north east Delhi" verifies the image above named "Delhi Riots 2020."

In my opinion, the images submitted by Banswalhemant offer better framing and richer colors, making them superior to those published by Outlook.

Be that as it may, now that these photos are authenticated, it remains for them to be inserted into the article space. The only stumbling block would appear to be the discussion at WP:RSN § Can we use photos of the Delhi riots a resident has uploaded?, where administrator Doug Weller questioned Banswalhemant's photos because "they aren't reliably published." The discussion remains open, despite the fact that three of the images in question already appear on other Wikipedia pages:

Naturally I'll await the noticeboard outcome before adding any of these photos to North East Delhi riots. But we ought to be able to use at least the two that I've verified. NedFausa (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, you know, when I first read your comment, my initial reaction was "No, this is all original research." But looking at the two photographs you highlight, the uploaded photos and the photos in the Outlook magazine are–as far as I can tell–showing the same places. So, with Outlook telling us what those photographs show, it seems to me that we can use the photographs and provide a caption that is cited to the Outlook article. I've never come across this situation before, though. It's like we can't use Outlook's copyright images, so we went and made PD duplicates? I guess that works? Curious to see what others think. And thanks for finding this, Ned! Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal (File:North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1).jpg )

Muslim homes and businesses burned during the North East Delhi riots.[1]

I propose that we add just one picture, the superb picture File:North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1).jpg taken by Banswalhemant. It is indeed the picture of a gym in Shiv Vihar burned down during the riots. The reference is one of India's four reliable daily newspapers, The Calcutta Telegraph. It is the story: "Shiv Vihar: Home for 15 years, but not any more," by Furquan Ameen, published on 28 February, 2020, which in turn can be cited for the picture's caption. For those who want more information, the yellow and red diamond building in the corner is King's Gym (as shown in its Just Dial entry), owned by Ashraf Qazi, whose signboard you can see in this high-res picture, and whose phone number in the picture you can compare with the owner's on Just Dial. I congratulate Banswalhemant for this stalwart work, among Wikipedia's best, in my view, which he should nominate for a Featured Picture at WP:FPC without further ado. (If it becomes a featured picture, for the FPC people fuss about all sorts of things I know nothing about, I will propose at Talk:India that it be added to India.) I propose that we add this picture in the lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ameen, Furquan (28 February 2020), "Shiv Vihar: Home for 15 years, but not any more", The Telegraph, Kolkata, New Delhi, retrieved 9 March 2020
The article didn't have a lead image, so I boldly added this as the lead image. (I agree with FPC nomination also. Great work.) I used "buildings" in the caption instead of "Muslim homes and businesses" because the caption in the source says "homes" (not businesses, even though the article body says the red and yellow building housed a business), and because I thought we should have some discussion about whether specifying that they are Muslim homes/business is WP:DUE or not. I have no strong feeling on the subject but I didn't want to make that call unilaterally. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 02:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I share your admiration for the photography of Banswalhemant, and concur with inserting the image you indicated in the lead. However, I disagree that we should limit ourselves to just one additional photo. In particular, subsection North East Delhi riots § 24 February, which recounts "A massive parking lot with 170 cars was burned by a mob," virtually screams to be illustrated with either Delhi Riots 2020.jpg or Delhi Riots 2020 (1).jpg. The starkness and loneliness of those pictures (despite the presence in the first of a single, dazed-looking individual off to one side) are haunting. NedFausa (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Honestly, I had no idea what this article is about. I am so unaware about what is going on in India. I thought this article is about the anti-CAA protests but it seems to be about the pro-CAA protests. Thanks for those pictures.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The picture is not the same as this one [[2]] and in fact even some of the scorch marks look different. You cannot use a source that does not in fact contain the image, it violates wp:synth.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, why does it violate SYNTH? Synth says not to come to a novel conclusion. What is the novel conclusion? The source says that those buildings were burned in the riot. The wikipedia article does not claim that the picture we use is used in the source; just that both the source pictures and the picture we have depict the same place. I don't see how that's SYNTH? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It does, its why it being used as a cite, that is what cites are for "this is where there comes from", its not. Thus its sysnthy to say this source supports this image (as they are not the same, and even seem to have different levels of damage). Its synthy because it says "this image must be true, its almost like this one from an RS".Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The images are verified. There is no way you can dispute that. This article is said to be under some sort of restrictions. Can any admin look into this? Doug Weller, anyone?. I think this is disruptive now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
"This is where this comes from" – in this case, the "this" is the caption, not the image. The fact that these buildings were burned in the riot ... that comes from the source. Not the picture. And we don't usually source pictures using cites in captions anyway. Instead, the source of the picture is documented on the image info page. So I don't think the reader will be confused and think the picture came from the source. In any case, the fact that the picture depicts buildings burned in the riots is not a "novel conclusion" – it's explicitly stated by the source that those buildings were burned in the rioting. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe that is why we do not usually cite pictures, because it is confusing. We do not need the cite, so it should be removed unless it links to the picture.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll let you guys settle this and other image questions. I am done with this page. I had come here because I was requested to do so. I think the sources are no longer being updated, so I consider the lead to be more or less in a good place, showing the consensus of third-party international reporting (I.e. of major third-party international hard-news print newspapers of my previous formulation with correspondents in Delhi). I will check the page from time to time, but I have other fires to put out. Any major changes in the lead will of course come to my attention immediately. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in content issues and that's what this is. Take the issue to the RSN thread. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It should not have been removed & I support the replacement. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, it wasn't removed. The editor added "failed verification" tag.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I misread it. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We assume good faith that a commons image uploader that has proven they live in a region to be able to take such pictures, that when they say a photo is of what they say it is, we are not going to doubt them or assume it is synthesis, particularly in a case like this. Trying to question legitimacy is an exercise in futility. --Masem (t) 19:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
If we are going to dispute this picture, we might as well dispute all the pictures on the India page: of Ajanta, of the Taj Mahal, of the Tiger, of the Golden Temple, of the Sari, or the Railway Mutton Curry, for no source published by an indisputably reliable publisher will say that that picture taken from the same camera angle, in the same light conditions is Ajanta, the Taj Mahal, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I support the picture. I find the quibbling about the citation to be unreasonable. Fowler&fowler, thanks a million for working on the lead and the delicate balancing of the myriad aspects. I am sorry that I couldn't participate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome sir Mohanabhil. Banswalhemant|talk Hemant Banswal 20:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Alternative solution

Instead of including a citation in the caption of each photo, I have substituted a footnote providing a disclaimer as to origin of that photo. Hopefully this will clarify that we are making no claim that the photo is the same as the published source in our reference, which is offered only in the footnote and solely for context. NedFausa (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This isnt needed. The image is of the same buildings. Thats it! that should have been enough. Anyways, can we add the sourced caption "Muslim homes and businesses burned during the North East Delhi riots"?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Why do we need to cite the caption? If the photo we do not need a cite.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
We also should not be using sources as a cite that cite us (wp:circular).Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven I remedied your concern about circular sourcing by rewriting the footnote, which now reads: Photo by Banswalhemant is original. The following reference to a published source that includes the same photo is offered solely for context. We make no claim that Eurasia Review is the source of our photo. NedFausa (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a bit of a vague area WP:CITE implies we only cite to verify the content.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, the references in question are included within footnotes in accordance with Help:Footnotes to provide explanatory information. Each footnote expressly disavows the cited webpage as the source of our image. I fail to understand why that does not alleviate your concerns. NedFausa (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Because removing them would do it without reservation, and policy says we do not need them. Thus I fail to see why so much effort is being used to defend that is not needed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "Daily Pageviews" from Talk page

I believe that people who want to know this number, also know how to check it from page info. Having it on talk page is not necessary, and in this case it is leading to harm, as people may get concerned. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Have removed the section WP:BOLDly, if anyone has any objections then please discuss here. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Objection I disagree that people who want to know this number, also know how to check it from page info, or that they should be forced to do so. You allege that the annual readership template is leading to harm, but that is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. The template should be restored, with consensus. NedFausa (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Edited pictures shouldn't be used here. Can the unedited pictures be used please.

Original
Current

The photographs currently used in the article have been edited (Snapseed 2.0). Considering this is such a highly sensitive topic, the editing is done according to me in such a way that the destructive colours are amplified. I don't think this is ok. Can the unedited pictures be used please. DTM (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

pinging @Banswalhemant: DTM (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
IN what have have they been edited?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven, colour correction as I wrote "colours are amplified".... @Banswalhemant: please acknowledge the editing. I am just making a calculated guess. Please just show the original ones so that everyone can compare if the colour correction is significant. This can't be left to chance with this article Thank you. DTM (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, if they have been enhanced or photoshopped, it would be better to have the originals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Sir, I have Uploaded the original picture, you can check it.[[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Amazing. Like minds ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't really tell the difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing any difference either.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The two pictures at the top of this thread look the same because they are the same. I’m not sure how to wikilink to archives pics on Commons, but this is the original, and this is the filtered version. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Eww. What is that, some kind of crappy instagram filter or something? We shouldn't be using the retouched image based solely on the fact that it's a bad retouching. GMGtalk 17:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done We can compare the current with its previous version under File History here. If you still see the darkened image at 2020 Delhi riots, please Force Refresh your browser (Windows: Ctrl+F5). NedFausa (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Clockwise from upper left: (a) A mosque in Shiv Vihar with signs of smoke damage shown with congregation (b) A mosque without congregation in Shiv Vihar showing signs of smoke damage (c) Shops in Shiv Vihar gutted by fires

@Banswalhemant: Do we have your permission for showing these pictures and what do others think of them; obviously, only one of the mosque will go. I think the congregation add a human element, and the dog features animals, who must now be short of food. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Sir, You can use any picture which is clicked by me. For animals you may use this picture [4]. This is the picture of Gukal Puri at which there was a Tyre market which was burned in riot. And now the dogs are wandering here and there for food. In this picture there is a dog who is looking at the burned shops.Banswalhemant (talk)

Tomorrow I will visit in relief camps which are made for riot-affected victims. So hopefully, I will get some good Pictures from there.Banswalhemant (talk)

Great. Please read: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights, just so that you don't find your picture unusable on WP. Look forward @Banswalhemant:! Good luck and be safe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: Just FYI, but India does not have privacy protections or consent requirements for photographs of identifiable people so long as they are in a public space. GMGtalk 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, we should always upload and retain the unedited original even if we do decide to retouch it somehow for use in an article. That way if someone else wants to retouch it some other way for some other future use they can do so. GMGtalk 15:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Today I visited in the Relief camps. These Relief camps are made for Delhi riot-affected victims at Eidgah in Mustafabad, Delhi. The Eidgah camp was set up by the Central Wakf Council in association with the Government of Delhi. More than a thousand people accommodated here in which most of the people are those whose houses burned or demolished in riots and some peoples are their neighbors who were feeling unsafe in their homes. The Entry was restricted but somehow, I went into this place and talked to some people & volunteers. Also there is restriction for taking pictures of people in relief camps. There is a timing for media personals which is 11:30 am to 12:30 pm. I am just a volunteer in wikipedia so, I thought, I need to click some pictures from any building which should be very close to this place but nobody is giving permission to enter in their home because I am an outsider for them and those who involved in this riot was outsiders so, I clicked some pictures from the top of a nearby mosque "Masjid And Imam Bargah Imam-e-Asr". In these pictures you can see people, shelters, Children, temporary toilets & sanitation facilities and temporary kitchen. Hemant Banswal 16:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome SharabSalam. Hemant Banswal 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Fabulous pictures, Banswalhemant. I don't believe in my 13 years on Wikipedia, I have seen such vital high-quality pictures, so relevant furthermore, for a developing vital story. Hats off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much sir Fowler&fowler. Hemant Banswal 18:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs)

Timeframe of this line in the lead

"corpses continue to be found in sewer drains" - can we please put a timeframe for this. Thank you. DTM (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rewritten in past tense. NedFausa (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. That makes more sense. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have never read a more unreliable article

The article as we can see is written by someone totally biased. Not only it excluded the name of Tahir Hussain who was chief suspect of the riots but also hidden the fact that this was actually a muslim terror attack and those who were attacked were actually hindus. Muslim mob burned public properties and pelted stones on police. There are innumerable video proofs for that. Void som (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Void som Wikipedia summarizes information that appears in independent reliable sources, giving weight to differing points of view based on how they are reported in such sources. If you believe the article can be improved, please offer the specific improvements you want to make here. This is a contentious topic, with people from differing religions and other points of view involved, and here we all must work together in a civil manner to achieve a consensus as to what the article should say. We aren't going to solve any religious or legal disputes in India here, so we should just focus on article content. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

    • Begin

An example of change: "three days time" should be replaced with "three days time after President Trump visit". (Kapil Mishra didn't want to create problems during Trump Visit and also the ultimatu was to the police not the protestor). Also a video has surfaced where Umar Khalid said that minorities should go to Delhi during Trump visit to protest and show the plight of minorities in India. Then Waris pathan also gave courage to people saying we are 15 but will be heavy on 100.

A bigger change is the timeline. Whole thing started because of blocking roads. "Blocking road" call was given by Sharjeel Imam. Shaheen bagh followed. Later on Shaheen Bagh disassociated with Sharjeel Imam ( can give India today link for this sentence if required). Then again metro areas were trying to be blocked. pro-caa opposed it. stone pelting happened. Riot followed when Trump was in India.

"The success of Shaheen Bagh inspired similar protests at other sites in Delhi. These too blocked major roads, and in one case affected the entrance to a metro station. That was sheer bad policy. It was likely to provoke retaliation at some point, either by the police or BJP goons". From http://swaminomics.org/the-right-and-wrong-lessons-of-shaheen-bagh/

"Sources have told India Today TV that Sharjeel Imam was among the people who were instrumental in organising the protests at Shaheen Bagh." https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/shaheen-bagh-sharjeel-imam-organiser-protest-assam-agitate-video-1640170-2020-01-25

    • End

ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

News Nation a popular TV Channel from Delhi and its web site has reported how things turned out here https://www.newsstate.com/states/delhi-and-ncr/delhi-riots-chronology-shaheen-bagh-caa-protest-in-maujpur-zafarabad-delhi-police-nrc-npr-delhi-violence-131130.html but this article relies on Washington Post which does not even have a reporter on the ground and who has nosourceof telling how it reached to one sided conclusion that it was aimed at Muslims and not perpetrated by them when it happened in a Muslim Majority area and most victims properties belonged to Hindus. Nody 09:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian-sb (talk • contribs)

Given the contentious nature of this event, there might be something to be said for using sources who can look at it more dispassionately than "on the ground" sources. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I would agree, and go slightly further and say only non Indian sources should be used.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Void som:, Joanna Slater heads up WaPos South Asia bureau based in Delhi. Please read below:
  • New Delhi, India
  • Foreign correspondent covering South Asia
  • Education: Smith College, BA ; Columbia University, MA in International Affairs and MS in Journalism
  • Joanna Slater is the India bureau chief for The Washington Post. She is an an award-winning foreign correspondent whose career includes reporting assignments in the United States, Europe and Asia. Prior to joining The Post, she worked at Canada's Globe & Mail and the Wall Street Journal. She was based in Asia for seven years, first in Hong Kong and then Mumbai. In 2014-5, she was posted in Berlin, where she covered Europe’s refugee crisis. Slater began her career as a Luce Scholar at the Far Eastern Economic Review and was also a Knight-Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University.
  • Honors & Awards:
  • Journalist of the Year, Canadian National Newspaper Awards, 2015
  • Winner, International coverage, Canadian National Newspaper Awards, 2015
  • Young Journalist Award, Society of Publishers in Asia, 1998
  • Foreign languages spoken: French, Hindi
Our compact is WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Some of the best-known third-party international print newspapers The New York Times, The Washington Post, Guardian, Times, The Independent, Le Monde, Sydney Morning Herald have bureaus in Delhi, and news agencies such as Reuters and AP have the occasional signed article written by reporters some of whom are in Delhi. Jeffrey Gettleman, for example, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. When there is such unanimous accounting of the events by journalists of vast experience writing for newspapers of credibility and reputation, our hands are tied. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Is The Times of India reliable?

There is a timely discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard involving The Times of India, which accounts for eight references (one cited twice) at North East Delhi riots. Editors who have relied on The Times of India here may find those comments informative. It could be that we are taking too much for granted about that publication. NedFausa (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion WP:RSN § Times of India RFC has been closed with the result that The Times of India (TOI)'s reliability is both "Unclear or additional considerations apply" and "Generally unreliable for factual reporting." Now the question is what to do about the eight references (one cited twice) in North East Delhi riots. Should we strive to replace all citations to TOI, or evaluate each on its individual merits and retain if it passes muster? NedFausa (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

We should strive to replace all citations, especially if they are in the lead (I haven't checked rigorously). If not possible, then case by case etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done Working independently, SerChevalerie and I have replaced or removed all citations to The Times of India. NedFausa (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion on Indian government response to this article

There is a noticeboard discussion on the Indian government's response to the content of this article. If you are interested, please participate at WP:CEN § Indian government response to Wikipedia's coverage of the 2020 Delhi riots. — Newslinger talk 04:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Described as a pogrom

Numerous media article I've read about these riots describe them as a pogrom. I tried to add a sentence about this into the article, explicitly not using Wikipedia's voice, but saying that the riots have been widely "described as a pogrom", with citations to The Atlantic, The New York Times, Vice, and The Economic Times. The edit was reverted under the justification that opinion pages are not allowed. However, Wikipedia clearly allows citations to opinion pages for verifying statements of opinion. As WP:BIASEDSOURCES states: "... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In addition, some of the citations were to actual news stories, not opinion pages. Is there a better way that I could integrate this information into the article that would be acceptable? Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave it to Fowler&fowler to explain why "only hard news by third party international sources" are acceptable. He's been pushing that POV consistently at this Talk page without ever, in my opinion, adequately justifying it. Having said that, however, I must add that your phrase "widely described" is problematic for two reasons. First, the reader might construe it to mean widely reported news, rather than widely expressed opinion. Second, widely does not befit your four supportive references. Journalist Fahad Shah resides in New Delhi and in Kashmir. Political editor Hartosh Singh Bal works for The Caravan, also based in New Delhi. Politician Asaduddin Owaisi likewise resides in New Delhi. Three out of four sources from New Delhi do not represent widespread opinion. Only Parisian Mira Kamdar, born in the United States to a Gujarati father and a Danish-American mother, can be considered at least geographically distant from New Delhi. You've cited a narrow—not wide—sample of opinion. NedFausa (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A pogrom in the meaning applicable here is an organized, officially tolerated, attack on a community. That is already stated in the lead: the Muslims were targeted, the police stood passively by. The word pogrom, with other meanings, is not needed here. It is imprecise. I will add something more about the police joining in. Thanks for the post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Kaldari: The claim is highly contentious and will require agreement from many sources. All you did was cite a non-neutral opinion article from Atlantic, and cite statement of a communal politician called Owaisi for misrepresenting the subject as "widely described as pogrom". See Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_5#This_is_not_a_pogrom where this sort of wishy washy was rejected. Azuredivay (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I think there may be a case (if we do not) if a brief mention of this being described as a program, with of course a response.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at the totality of the source material, but Owaisi's views do not really belong. He's a politician; all notable Indian politicians are likely to have said something about these riots, and I see no reason to give him extra weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a pogrom not a riot

What happened in Delhi 2020 was not a riot, but an organized anti-muslim pogrom. So the headline should be edited.

https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/delhi-riots-pogrom-violence-deaths-modi-bjp-india-police-a9384891.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3C_Z6yMcJBeGzwNNk9RINqR8s8FPXN0jN6Shgo8aM6G49nFZM55lZve2E#Echobox=1583656142

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/delhi-violence-clashes-maujpur-babarpur-shiv-vihar-chand-bagh-6304430/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad z06 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Only with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, there are many RS calling it a pogrom but more widely it's being called a riot. I did find a few new sources I don't see in the article, however:
    [1]Why India’s Muslims Are in Grave Danger I do not know if we consider ForeignPolicy.com to be an RS but I don't see any glaring issues that would lead me to believe they can't be trusted. This is also a piece from someone who is an expert on communal riots and I would generally consider to be at least in the realm of being an SME, Ashutosh Varshney.
    [2] Hate Is Being Preached Openly Against Us.' After Delhi Riots, Muslims in India Fear What's Next from TIME. Discusses violence against Muslims, Modi's role, specifically Modi, the most powerful Hindu nationalist Prime Minister in Indian history

References

  1. ^ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/02/india-muslims-delhi-riots-danger/
  2. ^ https://time.com/5794354/delhi-riots-muslims-india/
I will defer to others before adding these but I think at the very least, the TIME piece has a lot of value and there is absolutely no question about their editorial integrity. Praxidicae (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there are "many RS" but only a few. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to put "pogram" into the article. Of the 53 killed, there are 14 Hindus and 2 Hindu police officers. That is 2:1 Muslim:Hindu mortality. The Hindus died at the hands of the Muslims. What sort of a pogram was that? We are describing what happened without using loaded words uttered by commentators with opinions. That is why only hard news articles written by third-party international sources with reporters based in Delhi, not an op-ed column, not an editor of Time sitting in New York. It is as simple as that. Adam Withnall, writing from the Independent in Delhi says only that some political scientists have called it a pogram. He does not characterize it as a pogram. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I should have clarified I wasn't suggesting it should be changed or even mentioned but that there are two very good sources that should be otherwise incorporated in the article. Forget the pogrom wording. I think it's also an absurd statement to say that a source such as TIME cannot be used because of the location of some of their journalists. You clearly didn't read the article given the byline: BY SAMEER YASIR/DELHI AND BILLY PERRIGO/LONDON MARCH 3, 2020 Praxidicae (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I don't intend to get involved in this tinderbox of an article but I will state that reliable sources are classifying it as a pogrom. Pogroms also don't necessarily mean casualties have to be solely one sided (e.g:1958 anti-Tamil pogrom) and there is also no confirmation that all Hindu casualties have been caused by Muslims (e.g: TIME reported that Ankit Sharma was killed by a Hindu nationalist mob; though that is disputed). Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

information Administrator note I'll be preemptive by instructing participants not to add pogrom as a general descriptor for the riots until consensus is formed. If you find yourself at an impasse, a Request for Comment that is properly closed can codify the consensus one way or the other. El_C 16:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

An earlier revision of the article has the word "pogrom" but it was removed later without any discussion. There are multiple reliable sources which mention it as "pogrom" including experts for instance:

--KartikeyaS (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

There was a huge discussion about it, see this. Your blatant misrepresentation is only going to put you in a bad light. "some of the hallmarks of pogrom" is incomplete. Last one is an unreliable source. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
KartikeyaS343 If you think there has been no discussion here about the word pogrom you simply have not bothered to read this page. NedFausa (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed it but thank you for merging it. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It was removed here. I think it is sourced and should be included. Is there any source that dispute that it is a pogrom? --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It should remain removed because cherry-picking mainly opinion pieces or shoddy sources is not enough for pushing a controversial label which would require consensus by all sources. Note that millions of reliable sources have written about this incident by now, to say we should cherry pick several sources is asking for too much. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
There maybe hundreds of thousands of sources written about this incident but how many sources are there written about the motives against the incident? The sources I mentioned above are from experts, not journalists. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Lede

Users, please read wp:lede it is for summarising important points in the article, it is not a news paper style leader. Nothing in the lede should take up the same space as it does in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored[5] to the last revision by Kautilya3. Please ask the editors to reach a consensus here before editing the article. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
In this edit the lede edits were undiscussed (just like most of the times before too) but rest of the text had been discussed in the above sections such as here. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I have seen a lot of on and off wiki canvassing being going on (can email evidence if required) so I have no objection to edits by any editor in good standing. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Being discussed and being agreed to is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If on wiki canvasing is occurring it needs to be reported at ANI as it is against the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

User:KartikeyaS, please let me know why you reverted all my edits. I had cited the references by User:Trojanishere for it. Please also tell me which word in Hindi translates to "bastards" since you added it back after its removal.Souniel Yadav (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Souniel Yadav please see WP:V and WP:RS as suggested by another editor on your talk page and try to reach a consensus before adding any contentious materials. KartikeyaS (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Reversion

Slatersteven, I don't have much time to keep editing Wikipedia but I believe that if Tahir Hussain, Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma can be mentioned in this article, so can the former councillor Ishrat Jahan. You reverted my edit here where I had added her name according to what Trojanishere had proposed (which can be seen further above) and asked me to obtain a consensus. Please respond. Can we use her name in this article? Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe the 3 sources I used for the sentence are reliable.Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes he did suggest it and others opposed it. As we already have a discussion about this we do not need another, so please make your case there.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

CAA along with anticipated NRC discriminatory

Would like to modify the following sentence: The Act has been seen as discriminatory to Muslims and threatening to their existence in India when combined with **anticipated lying by non-muslims about their origin** and the anticipated National Register of Citizens (NRC).[33][34][35][36][37]

Logic There are 100+crores of non-muslims in India. The combined population of Bangladesh+Pakistan is approx 40 crores and people who have migrated are even smaller. So even CAA+NRC cannot be discriminatory if all people are honest about their origin. Only if non-muslim choose to lie can it be discriminatory. If people don't choose to lie they will face the same consequence as muslims and it won't be discriminatory.ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And which of the cited sources support the text you want to add? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist "An honest NRC should exclude illegal migrants of all religions." from https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-caa-and-nrc-1630771-2019-12-23 None of the documented link talks about "how" NRC+CAA can impact the "muslims" only. CAA only gives citizenship. NRC is for "illegal immigrant". People have explained to me that if non-muslim lie they can get away because of CAA. An honest NRC will not allow that. So if you have any link which explains how "honest" non-muslims will not get excluded by proposed NRC will be glad to know. Or if you have any other explanation will be glad to learn and educate myself. Please note I am not saying people will lie or not lie, I am just saying non-muslims have to lie otherwise in honest process it doesn't threaten existence of any community or say of all community. Hope I am making sense. ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus

Please see the Citizenship Amendment Act page for that. This is not the place to discuss the merits and implications of the CAA -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hindu Nationalism & Hindus

@Fowler&fowler: Pinging you since you seem to be the most involved editor on the article currently. I understand that you are almost directly quoting specific lines from the references, primarily being the Le Monde and NYT articles which are fairly in depth. I fear the resultant paragraph of the quotations are failing to demonstrate the political affiliation of the Hindu perpetrators and equating "Hindus" and "Hindu nationalists" as one and the same, a nuance which would be present if the articles themselves were to be summarized as a whole and not directly quoted from. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not the most involved editor. I appeared here to fix the lead after I was requested. I haven't edited the remaining sections. Not just NYT and LeM, but also Guardian, Wapo, Independent, Economist, ... As they keep changing what might appear primary keeps changing. I don't believe, we are equating "Hindu nationalism" with "Hindus." We don't know the political affiliation of the Hindus, especially in the early phase of the violence; however, after the wall was breached, as it were, gangs bearing the signs and ensigns of Hindu nationalism appeared and began their misdeeds. That we do say. We don't use the adjective "Hindu nationalist" in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: The NYT articles goes into detail on the socio-political conditions and the emergence of Hindu nationalism which it follows with historical incidents concluding at the events in the riots. Le Monde aside from covering details of Hindu nationalist markers among the rioters, directly states:

The situation in New Delhi, the capital of India, deteriorated from hour to hour, Wednesday, February 26, and raised fears of the worst. Demonstrations against a discriminatory nationality law against Muslims have escalated into an inter-community conflict - allegedly orchestrated by Hindu nationalists.

The guardian too directly states:

Violence in India’s capital has left more than 40 dead and hundreds injured after a Hindu nationalist rampage, stoked by the rhetoric of Narendra Modi’s populist government

The Independent quotes a witness and refers to a specific number of people, following it with descriptions of people using Hindu nationalist symbolism. The Economist article is brief and simple refers to have mobs having attacked Muslims. Point to be noted is that, there has been given any other motivation for the riots other than Hindu nationalism in any of the mentioned sources, it should therefore be reasonable to call them Hindu nationalists or if one were to even only use quotations, lay out the details of the usage of Hindu nationalist symbolism as I believe was present in a previous iteration of the article. There no such mention other than the usage of "flags of Hindu nationalism", which appears an attribute of the "Hindu mob" and not as a distinctive feature whereas the specificity of the political inclination of the rioters is very obvious in the sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 18:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Hindu nationalism, I'm not sure. It's a complicated concept, and I doubt that the crowd was well versed in its nuances. Hindu supremacism, very likely. The leader who egged them on belongs to a Hindu nationalist party, and perhaps we can say that, but the BJP is widely-known to espouse Hindutva, so a mention might be redundant. Either way, as I've argued above with other buzz words e.g. "pogrom," etc. It is better to describe in clear and transparent detail what happened, who did what to whom, without cluttering the description, or narration, with blue links that force people to click out of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it makes much sense to distinguish between Hindu nationalists and Hindus any more. The riots happened in the areas where the BJP was strong in the recent assembly election, getting 40-50 percent of the overall vote (and so a much higher percentage of the Hindu vote). While we can't say that all the BJP voters participated in the violence, they certainly bought the goli maro slogans and acquiesced in the violence. So, who are "Hindu nationalists" and who are not? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

New York Times and Washington Post

The American newspapers now routinely use different titles in their online Asia-Pacific editions and the American print editions. Where necessary, I am adding the titles of the print editions, because these are what are found in the libraries. The dates of the two editions also differ, but that is something we expect anyway. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is Asia-Pacific, just online, even in the US; i.e. a print version appears with one title and the online version may have another and might be being updated as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong information

As per this page the attack was done by hindu people to muslim people and hindus started it. But slingshot that was welded into the building of a school whose owner was a muslim person not mentioned.. Also the house of tahir hussain holds acid packets and lots of stones with petrol bombs founded by police . So the attack was pre planned by which community as per the proofs and the videos available on news/delhi police. This wiki page of delhi riots is clearly showing muslims as a victim however all the proofs of videos and evidences lead to the point that the riots were pre planned by the muslim community. Yes hindus were also involved in it but the starting and planned was from the other community. If you are writing something search for all things and use it dont manipulate information and always play a victim card.Leakyleaks (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Source please?Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

New lead edits

Fowler&Fowler made an edit on the lead[7] which I pointed out here that he misrepresented the source. He swiftly reverted the improvement and misrepresentation of source is currently sticking.

Source: the violence, which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.
This article: that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mob.

Source only refers the overall violence as "predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", it does not attribute killings of all Muslims in the riots to have carried out by Hindu mobs. Wareon (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Wareon, If I am right, you can remove wrong information.Souniel Yadav (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
A number of editors have just edited this talk page and I hope they review my above message. Wareon (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Wareon, it may never happen, so do it yourself.Souniel Yadav (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Done. Wareon (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Can we please have some citational balance in atleast the first paragraph!

The first paragraph currently has citations from only four places (cites 13 to 17) - Gaurdian, New York Times, The Washington Post and NPR. Can't we have some more sources from Europe, Australia, Africa, China, Middle East, (Antarctica! Mars! Anywhere else!) right there at the top in a more balanced way? Anywhere else than only from US & GB? Like have them, but have others too? Please. DTM (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the lede should have no cites at all.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Not really. Anything likely to be challenged should have a citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
As to DiplomatTesterMan's concern, do the other sources disagree? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
DiplomatTesterMan, Kautilya3, the 3rd paragraph says, "When in response to Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men started gathering to break up the protest, which had been taking place near their neighbourhood, the violence began; initially, it was two-way, with Hindus and Muslims attacking with equal deadliness,[27] and most deaths attributed to gunfire.[28] But by 25 February 2020, the balance had shifted.[27] Rioters wearing helmets and carrying sticks, stones, swords or pistols, and the saffron flags of Hindu nationalism were rushing violently into Muslim neighbourhoods, as the police stood passively by.[29][30] Chants were heard of "Jai Shri Ram" ("Victory to Lord Rama, a major Hindu deity") a slogan to which the ruling party is partial.[16] In the neighbourhood of Shiv Vihar, groups of violent Hindu men attacked Muslim houses and businesses for three days, often firebombing them with cooking gas cylinders and gutting them without any resistance from the police.[31] In some instances, Muslims encountered apprehended threats by returning the violence; on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns.[32]" You may want to add something in the first paragraph (for citational balance), using the same sources. Please do if you can. Thanks!Souniel Yadav (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • One more point is that we are using "third party international sources" but they are not exactly neutral. The Guardian source wholly depends on an anonymous source, an eyewitness and a retired UP (not Delhi) cop. Selection of sources do look poor. Wareon (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
We do not second guess RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
In theory I would like to say so much here; but it is exhausting as we all know. Practically not likely to go anywhere anytime soon. DTM (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Slatersteven then why we do have WP:IRS? Sources should be judged on independent basis when they provide conflicting information. Wareon (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Delhi Police consists of Hindus AND Muslims, as well as Sikhs etc.

When we say the Delhi Police helped so and so from this religion, it makes little sense. Delhi Police consists of Hindus AND Muslims, as well as Sikhs etc. So it is very possible Muslim policemen stood by when Hindus attacked Muslims. Not mentioning Muslim police personnel is misleading. But you ask for a source there is no source that mentions the Muslims police force percentage in the riots (not even our cherished NYT or WP or Gaurdian). So I think a note will suffice. Oh and were they Sunni or Shia... lol. Practically...

Request: I think it is important to put in a note related to the religious composition of the Delhi Police. DTM (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Do we know the ethnic make up of the Police deployed?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
The lead at present is too emotive. That's for sure. Wareon (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
More emotive than the cited sources? More emotive than reality? The source says,

As the mob attacks came once, then twice and then a third time in this north-east Delhi neighbourhood, desperate stallholders repeatedly ran to Gokalpuri and Dayalpur police stations crying out for help. But each time they found the gates locked from the inside. For three days, no help came. ... Since the riots broke out in Delhi at the end of February, the worst religious conflict to engulf the capital in decades, questions have persisted about the role that the Delhi police played in enabling the violence, which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims. Of the 51 people who died, at least three-quarters were Muslim, and many Muslims are still missing.

According to a witness, Arshad kept quiet, so the mob forced down his trousers. On seeing he was circumcised, as is common among Muslims in India, the mob instantly beat him to death. His bloodied body was later found in a gutter, his pants still around his ankles... In the aftermath, even in unaffected areas of Delhi, an exodus of Muslim families began this week, with swathes packing up their bags and returning for good to their home villages, fearing for their safety in the capital.

What sort of defensive nonsense are you guys spouting, nickel and diming sentence fragments, of all people, to me? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

At least 53 people were killed or suffered deadly injuries in violence that persisted for two days.The majority of those killed were Muslims, many shot, hacked or burned to death.

What do you think hacking is? Gently investigating the outermost epidermal layer with a feather? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Are we disusing the same thing in two threads?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any relevance of above quote farming for just any section.Wareon (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Those are some newspaper sentences that were paraphrased. (Please read the first few pages of The Holocaust. It is pretty detailed as to the motivations and methods of killing. Though this is nothing on that scale, the word "pogrom," has been used in various opinion columns, and there have been demands for its use here, even by seasoned WP hands such as Kaladari. I have avoided using them because the sources are not using them independently, only attributing others doing so.) I have said that it is best to use only high-quality third-party international sources; otherwise, very quickly the page descends into toxic edit warring. The sources used in the lead are all high-quality, third-party, international. Eventually, with time, as longterm views appear, books are published, our language will change. But for now, our hands are tied. We can't change the tone of the language, for the accounts in the sources are not yet distant enough from the subject to settle on a formal characterization or tone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Did everyone here just turn a blind eye to interfaith solidarity shown before, during and after the riots?

This heading is oh so important!

There are many more of a similar kind (enough to create a nice new section in the article)

  • 'We lost a brother': Hindu, Muslim families in Delhi share grief: Interfaith solidarity on display as people mourn the loss of their kin as death toll in Delhi violence rises to 34. (27 February 2020; Al Jazeera)
  • Indian archbishop comforts capital’s riot-affected victims (Vatican News)
  • Indian diaspora protests against Delhi violence, CAA in London, demands Amit Shah's resignation (India Today)

DTM (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan, Why don't you add it?Souniel Yadav (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
User:DiplomatTesterMan, I completely agree with your comment and I wrote a well-sourced section on this titled "Local opposition to the riots" to discuss Hindu-Muslim unity and the exemplification of the Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb during this criris. I also added one sentence to the lede to summarize this section, but it was removed by another user. I will try to do my best to add information from the references you provided later today and will restore a sentence in the lede that summarizes this. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Wareon, I'm not sure why the paragraph was removed (it was done so in this edit). However, I have added a new paragraph, buttressed by multiple sources, based on those that I had previously found, as well as those contributed by User:DiplomatTesterMan. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

My edits to the lead section

May I know what exactly forced my edits to be reverted? What I had done was to improve the language of that section and also to refine the tone of the language used there, while not changing the narrative of the event in any manner. Thanks! Aswin8 (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that explained on your talk page? Doug Weller talk 08:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
User:Fowler&fowler did ask me to get consensus about my edit, so I guess I ought to ask what specific reason was it reverted for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aswin8 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Its a bit of a tough one, technically you are supposed to make a case as to why the edit should be made. But it might be a bit hard if no one tells you what they object to.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
That also means that I could continue with my edit, since no one takes any interest to actually say what wrong I did, I suppose.. Aswin8 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
You removed sourced content without explaining why. Why should someone bother to explain reverting such a disruptive edit?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
NO, that is not what it means, read w:onus, you have to make a case before resorting. So explain how this improves the articel?Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Well what i did do was to maintain consistency of language in the lead paragraphs by fixing few punctuations, joining multiple sentences while not changing it's tone. As pointed by user:SharabSalam, I did remove a sourced content, which I could reinstate in my own edit. Otherwise i don't see why my edit need to be reverted. Aswin8 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Some parts of your edit were good. Most of your edit was good. However, you did some mistakes like "olice" instead of "police". You removed "Many Muslims are still missing" without an explanation. Your explanation in the edit summary (Edits to the main paragraph) was definitely not enough explanation. Everyone knows that you did edits to the "main paragraph" but what exactly did you do and why? I am not asking for a detailed explanation, I am asking for an explanation that will make others understand what you did. Also, User:Fowler&fowler didnt receive a notification from your ping because you didn't sign your comment.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Acknowlekged User: SharabSalam, I'll make the necessary changes Aswin8 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

IndiaTVnews

Is this a reliable source?Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No. It says "Report" in the title to make it appear as if some study said something, but then attributes some stuff to unnamed "media reports". Completely wishy-washy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_7&oldid=1166545222"