Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Degenerating again

@El C, RegentsPark, and Vanamonde93: As invariably happens, once other topics gain the attention of Wikipedians, toxic forms of editing return. Please see the sentence on Hindu-Muslim unity in the lead, sourced to one dozen sources, among others to Hanah Ellis-Peterson's Guardian article, whose main point is anything but Hindu-Muslim unity. I had already once removed that sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment on content, not users. If the user is gaming the system report them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

True, I have kept only the comments on content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: the restriction this article is subjected to reads: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours. Has that rule been contravened? (If so, please document in the form of diffs.) El_C 17:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:El_C, I hope you are doing well. On the talk page, in the section above this one, I commented that I intended to add a summary of the local opposition to the riots section to the lede due to the request by User:DiplomatTesterMan above to add information on this topic. Moreover, I mentioned the following in my edit summary: "summarized section per WP:LEDE". What I added to the lede today was different than the last paragraph of the introduction (which was buttressed by references) that User:Fowler&fowler removed days ago, on 13 March 2020, which also summarized the same section. I had written the section in its entirety around 3 March 2020. If you would like me to self-revert the addition of the sentence to the lede if you feel I did anything wrong, kindly let me know and I will do so. As I see it now though, there were no reverts within twenty-four hours made by me on this topic throughout my history of editing this article. I hoe this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Anupam. I don't think there's a need for administrative intervention at this time. Resolution to this content dispute should be attempted through the usual means. El_C 17:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome User:El_C! I appreciate you taking the time to monitor this article, especially since it is prone to controversy. I trust that you will have a wonderful day ahead of you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@El C: He added a note here. But without any response from me, added a sentence with 12 citations. I request that the previous sentence be restored and a discussion proceed with an input from me. It can't be after a hurried consensus with other after not having edited this talk page since March 13; I on the other hand have been actively taking part. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, I do not see the need to remove the sentence as other editors here, including User:DiplomatTesterMan, User:Souniel Yadav, User:Wareon, and myself agreed for the need of more content regarding interfaith solidarity, which is why that sentence was added. If you object to the sentence, you can state that you do so in the section above. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 17:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, you state that you "already once removed that sentence" (on 13 March 2020); see Exhibit A. The sentence you removed stated:

The neighbourhood between Jaffrabad and Maujpur, which has a mixed population of Hindus and Muslims, demonstrated unity by guarding one another, barricading the neighbourhood entrance, and preventing outside mobs from entering and disturbing the communal harmony that has existed there.

On the other hand, the sentence I added today states:

Throughout the riots, many Hindus and Muslims, as well as those of other faiths, showed unity by protecting one another and each other's houses of worship, as well as praying in interfaith solidarity with one another.

Do you still feel these are the same sentence? If not, would you like to retract your statement? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Of course it is. Please self-revert, and discuss the sentence here. Superficially changing it, and adding 12 citations doesn't mean a thing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What percentage of Ellis-Peterson talks about Hindu Muslim Unity? Want me to give you the word count? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's obvious that the two are not the same sentence. The Ellis-Peterson article has six paragraphs devoted to interfaith solidarity and so do a plehtora of other reliable sources. That article states the following:

But for all the tales of discord, dozens of accounts were also given to the Observer of how Sikh and Hindu families helped save their Muslim neighbours, sheltering them in their homes as the violence broke out or helping them escape as the mobs descended.

One Hindu man, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, spoke of how he secretly escorted seven Muslim families to safety in Shiv Vihar.

“I formed a small group involving a few other elderly Hindu neighbours and we managed to thwart the planned attacks on those Muslim households,” he said.

Meanwhile, in the Hindu-majority neighbourhood of Gokalpuri, a Sikh father, Mohinder Singh, 53, and his son Inderjit used their motorcycles to rescue around 70 Muslim men and children, the youngest just nine years old. They had been trapped in the mosque and madrasa, as a mob roamed the streets outside. Singh took the children two at a time on his bike, putting turbans on their heads as a disguise.

“I did not see if they were Muslim or Hindu, I did this for humanity,” said Mohinder. “I had to save them.”

Majinder Singh Sirsa, a Sikh leader in Delhi, said the community had opened up its gurdwaras for shelter, but had been attacked by hardline Hindu and Muslim groups for doing so. “We do feel the pain because we were also targeted 35 years ago,” he said, referring to the anti-Sikh pogroms in Delhi in 1984 where more than 3,000 Sikhs were killed. “Back then, Delhi was burning and humanity died. This week, it has happened once again.”

Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources state and cases of communal harmony amidst the clashes will thus be included in this article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I think, in general, participants should reflect on the part of WP:ONUS, which reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you El_C. Also, only one source, the Guardian is a third-party international source; the remaining are Indian, and the Vatican news has its own ax to grind. In the Guardian article the very bitter end says a few things about Sikhs saving a few Muslims. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

User:El_C, thus far, the only editor that has opposed the mention of interfaith solidarity among Hindus and Muslims (as well as those of other faiths), is User:Fowler&fowler. Many other editors requested such content in the section above this one. I would like to invite those editors to comment their thoughts on this well cited sentence, if that's okay. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, don't be disingenuous. You complained directly to three administrators about "toxic forms of editing" and in your very next sentence singled out "the bizarre edit made by Anupam." You cannot now pretend, I have kept only the comments on content. You owe Anupam an apology. Additionally, I request that one of those three administrators—@El C, RegentsPark, and Vanamonde93:—immediately WP:REVDEL your personal attack on a fellow editor. NedFausa (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you think this exchange below was:

Comment on content, not users. If the user is gaming the system report them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

True, I have kept only the comments on content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC) ? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC) That meant, "I have removed the non-content portion of the comment." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Fowler&fowler self-corrected, so I consider the matter closed. Revdeletion is usually reserved for more egregious violations, so I don't see the need to apply it in this instance. El_C 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Again (to everyone) if you are not happy with a users conduct take it to wp:ani, not here. Please discus the content.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would actually recommend AE over ANI, since ARBIPA allows usage of this (in my view) superior forum. El_C 18:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Either is more appropriate then here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I am sorry to see the increasingly acrimonious debates and editing here. Fowler&fowler edited only the lead, for sure. But he used high-quality international sources that none of us can argue with. If the body isn't saying what the lead is saying, I think we should edit the body to bring it in line, not the other way around. The old lead was only talking about the events without covering the big picture. The lead now does cover the big picture. Bringing the body in line with it is going to be a big job. I don't have time for it right now, but I will get to it eventually.

Meanwhile, please feel free to debate whatever issues you find with Fowler's lead, but please wait for a CONSENSUS to emerge. Making changes in his absence isn't civil. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, I don't understand the problem with saying "Among others killed". "Copyedit" is not good enough an explanation for this change, which I believe I am seeing for the second or third time. It would amount to a violation of 1RR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Making changes in his absence!!! When was the Gatekeeper of the Lead last absent from editing 2020 Delhi riots? His most recent edit—which was in effect a wholesale reversion of multiple contributions by others—came at 18:47, 21 March 2020, 28 minutes before you posted this comment. NedFausa (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

His last comment here was on 19 March. Anyway, since he wrote the lead, if you want changes to it, it is common courtesy to seek his opinion. If there is no agreement, you can invite wider participation. That is how consensus-seeking proceeds. Language like "Gatekeeper of the Lead" isn't conducive to producing consensus. You also haven't explained why there is a slow edit war regarding "Among others killed". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3: FALSE. Between 19 March and your comment today at 19:48, the individual in question posted at this Talk page once yesterday and 20 times the day before. He has not been absent. NedFausa (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear NedFausa (1)

• I hope you don't mind my asking, but you changed "Among others killed were a policeman, an intelligence officer, and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted. (which is cited to Slater, Joanna; Masih, Niha (6 March 2020), "In Delhi's worst violence in decades, a man watched his brother burn", The Washington Post, retrieved 6 March 2020, 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. A police officer and an intelligence officer were also killed. So too were more than a dozen Hindus, most of them shot or assaulted. to:

• Those killed include a policeman, an intelligence officer, and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted.

• The quote specifically says, "A police officer and an intelligence officer were also killed." That means they were not in the count of the Muslims killed. Your phrasing does not make that distinction. Would you kindly revert back to the original phrasing? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:49, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear NedFausa (2)Thank you very much for adding the "Hindu mobs" back, which I had erred in disregarding. I apologize for my omission. However, can you explain how in your edit

• You changed the American spelling in a quote from Washington Post from "favored" to "favoured" and "neighbor" to "neighbour?" Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is timestamped 19:51, 21 March 2020. Yet the article as it stood at 19:20, 21 March 2020 shows American spelling in The Washington Post quote. You might at least check to see if what you're complaining about is still in the article before posting here. And it would help if you included a diff with each complaint. NedFausa (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you or did you not make that error? The fact that someone reverted your edit is irrelevant to my post. They did not revert it because of the error, but because of the process. I am pointing out the error, for which you alone were responsible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please provide the relevant diff. NedFausa (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This is the diff. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

That was an automatic result of my reversion of your unjustified overriding of multiple contributions by others. I did not make the original spelling change. NedFausa (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear NedFausa (3)

Thank you very much for adding the "deadliness" back; although I had originally added it, somehow the version to which I reverted has "virulence." Anyway, thank you very much again. However, I noticed you changed the sentence: "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 virulence,"cited to: Gettleman, Jeffrey; Yasir, Sameer; Raj, Suhasini; Kumar, Hari (12 March 2020), "How Delhi's Police Turned Against Muslims: More evidence has emerged that the Indian police took part in violence against Muslims or stood aside during fighting in the capital last month.", The New York Times, Photographs by Loke, Atul, retrieved 13 March 2020, When the violence started on Feb. 23 — as Hindu men gathered to forcibly eject a peaceful Muslim protest near their neighborhood — much of it became two-sided. By day's end, both Muslims and Hindus had been attacked, and dozens had been shot, apparently with small-bore homemade guns. But by Feb. 25 the direction had changed. to:

• "In response to Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men gathered to break up the protest, which had been taking place near their neighbourhood. Initially the violence was two-way, with Hindus and Muslims attacking with equal deadliness,"

• Please note the NYTimes phrasing, "as Hindu men gathered to forcibly eject a peaceful Muslim protest near their neighborhood." The "as" (emphasis mine) implies that the action of gathering was not complete; that is the reason why the past continuous "began gathering" was used. However, you had changed it to, "In response to Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men gathered to break up the protest." "gathered," the past simple, suggests that the action of gathering was complete, which is was not. Please change that back to the original as well, in case it has not already been reverted by Kautilya3. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear NedFausa (4), Thank you for changing "saffron flags of Hindu nationalism" to "saffron flags symbolizing Hindu nationalism." The original French is "portant des drapeaux safran – la couleur des nationalistes hindous," i.e. "carrying saffron flags - the color of Hindu nationalists." However, I'm not sure if Sophie Landrin means "saffron symbolizes Hindu nationalism," or simply, "flying saffron flags, the color favored by Hindu nationalists." I would respectully submit that we change it to that. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I think "saffron flags of Hindu nationalism" and "saffron flags symbolizing Hindu nationalism" are both correct. See my post at Talk:Saffronisation#Notes. I think "favoured by" sounds too wishy-washy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: I prefer "saffron flags of Hindu nationalism;" it is simple. But the problem for me is that, unlike my detailed explanations of why things are phrased the way they are, I am not getting any explanation for the changes, not in the edit summaries, not here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear NedFausa (5) Thank you for making these edits, as they have given me an opportunity to explain why the original phrasing was chosen. For example, I noticed that you changed the edit:

• Chants were heard of "Jai Shri Ram" ("Victory to Lord Rama, a major Hindu deity") a slogan to which the ruling party is partial." to

• "The slogan "Jai Shri Ram" ("Victory to Lord Rama, a major Hindu deity"), which is favoured by the ruling party, was chanted."

• The cited source has: "She said mobs entered her lane shouting “Jai Shri Ram,” or “Victory to Lord Ram,” a slogan favored by Modi’s party,"

I changed it to "to which the ruling party is partial" to avoid close paraphrasing. Also, the witness is saying "mobs entered her lane shouting, '...' " We can't really say, the slogan was chanted, only that chants were heard. I know it is a minor point, but it is important. Also, I had used fronting i.e. putting the predicative in front, in "Chants were raised," (instead of "XYZ raised chants of JSR")to mix up the sentence structure and break the monotony. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Fowler&fowler, apparently your revert removed this passage. Did you intend to remove it? If so, can you explain? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

As Liz has explained, he copied a sentence from the third paragraph into the first paragraph. So, it was being repeated twice. He has not responded to my points. As a result, major errors of paraphrasing remain in the text. Not sure what to do. There was nothing the matter, at all, with the version that was in place. It was a carefully paraphrased text. Now it is all messed up. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

---

NedFausa, please turn down the rhetoric and, in general, refrain from innuendo. If you have reached an impasse here, at the article talk page, please make use of any dispute resolution requests you see fit. El_C 19:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Reversion

Kautilya3, while reverting someone's edit, you happened to remove this sentence, so I added it back. Then Liz, removed it again. I believe you made a mistake while reverting the other editor's edits, so please add that sentence back again. It ought to be in the lead, right at the top, where I had put it for an NPOV balance. Thanks!Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia start sensationalising the FIRST LINE with gory details?

• The first line of this article says:

The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting,[13][14] that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.

• Compare this to the first line of 1984 anti-Sikh riots:

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also known as the 1984 Sikh Massacre, was a series of organised pogroms[8][9][10] against Sikhs in India in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards.

• Compare this to the first line of the The Holocaust:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah,[b] was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

• Compare this to the first line of the 1929 Palestine riots:

The 1929 Arab riots in Palestine, or the Buraq Uprising (Arabic: ثورة البراق‎, Thawrat al-Buraq), also known as the 1929 Massacres, (Hebrew: מאורעות תרפ"ט, Meora'ot Tarpat, lit. Events of 5689 Anno Mundi) refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence.

• I could go on. But the goriness of the first line itself of this article is just plain stupid, sensational and comparatively and historically disturbing. Why can't the first line at least leave out the gory details? Have it in the body.... oh wait no one reads that far right? DTM (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

  This isn't about how other articles look like and it is not detailed. The stuff in the lead are heavily reported in sources. They are definitely due weight. If you need to remove that part you should start a RfC. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read wp:lede, its a summery of the article, not a leader.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It certainly does not look like you have read what WP:lede says, it says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. You have to read the guidelines before suggesting them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the most important contents of the article what it is not is a "news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.". It should summerise the most important content of the article. I do not see how a list of injuries inflicted is an important part of the article. Shooting is mentioned in one line, slashed only in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You have removed the word "Hindu" just after an editor reverted a disruptive removal of it with a lame excuse disregarding BRD in a heavily sanctioned article. Also, no the current version of the lede is not news style. Those are definitely lead worthy information.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So how much space does it take up in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

And other examples of where we do mention casualties East St. Louis riots, 1921 Jaffa riots, Rosewood massacre, Memorial Day massacre of 1937. So I am not sure it is quite that clear cut.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Also see Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#New_lead_edits. I am certain sources are not represented correctly in this emotive lead. Wareon (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

"emotive" that's a weird spelling of the word "informative". Sorry we don't want an ambiguous lead. Sources definitely support the lead.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead or the very first sentence should be neutral and must be familiar with the general description of the incident across reliable sources. That is not happening here though. Wareon (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Lay of the snark.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Despite the preceding discussion, I remain unclear as to what is being proposed. For clarity, I offer this revision of the lead's first sentence with the gory details removed. Please, is that what you have in mind?

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction and rioting that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

If so, let's focus on that revision and await consensus to replace it accordingly in the lead. I must tell you, however, that in my personal opinion it does not adequately summarize the events recounted in our article. NedFausa (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my first post, saying there was bloodshed or death is not the issue. Its the list of injuries that is unneeded.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, the lead's first sentence should read:

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people, most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Is that what you are proposing? NedFausa (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much, but bloodshed should be replaced with violence something like "violence and bloodshed".Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

We need to be precise. You say bloodshed should be replaced with violence something like "violence and bloodshed" but that is addition not replacement. So it should read:

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven violence and bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people, most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Correct? NedFausa (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you please explain what violence you have in mind in addition to bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people? NedFausa (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Violence may not lead to bleeding, and bleeding is not always caused by violence. Thus I fell for clarity we need to say there was violence, not just bloodshed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing a subtle difference between American English and British English, but I believe Wikipedia readers of an article titled 2020 Delhi riots will comprehend immediately that bloodshed carries the common meaning listed first in our dictionary: destruction of life, as in war or murder; slaughter. Moreover, property destruction and rioting in this context are implicitly violent. For those reasons, I cannot support your proposed change with the redundant addition of "violence". NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

But not all the victims were killed, there were many many injured.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

How about this then?

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Better? NedFausa (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

If you must fine.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid the sentence is now awkwardly worded. I submit the following as better written.

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others.
  

However, I think you'd have to get behind this wholeheartedly, not grudgingly, if we're going to build consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: See Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#New_lead_edits. "by Hindu mobs" is not supported by the sources and those 3 words should be removed as well. Wareon (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If we say the 2020 Delhi riots were religiously driven, it seems fitting to name the religion of those who rioted. NedFausa (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Not really, I can (and have in the past) said "if this gets us consensus fine" (its called compromise) So \I can say yes I agree to this if it ends this (and I do).Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: Still what matters is if the content is supported by the sources. It is not. Majority of sources don't think this was a religiously driven incident but extension of CAA-related conflicts. Wareon (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline is not very helpful in resolving our discussion of the lead's opening. It recommends: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

In this instance, we might argue that calling the riots religiously driven by Hindu mobs overloads the first sentence, since that aspect is spread out over the entire lead. Indeed, in 7 paragraphs consisting of 700 words, Muslim or Muslims appears 23 times and Hindu or Hindus appears 16 times. (By contrast, Citizenship Amendment Act appears only once.)

By removing both "religiously driven" and "Hindu mobs", however, we're left with a first sentence that does not comport with the rest of the lead.

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others.

That sentence fails to introduce what the rest of the lead unambiguously emphasizes as the principal notability of this article: religious violence. As such, there's no chance we could attract consensus to substitute it. NedFausa (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• It still looks better than the heavily emotive lead which we have now. I am sure it can be improved further. Wareon (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The current wording is the result of an evolution of perspective in the reliable sources (major international third-party (ie. not Indian, not South Asian, not Al Jazeera, not China news, not Russia news etc) that began in early March. We started with phrasing such as "incidents of ..." because many sources were reporting it to be so. The sources then began to describe it as waves of violence, largely perpetrated by Hindus against Muslim, and only occasionally by Muslims in self-defense or to head off apprehended/perceived violence. The violence was brutal: there is no mincing of words here in the sources: men were stripped, their penises examined for circumcision (a Muslim custom), beaten, throttled, stabbed, shot, and dumped in the gutter with not even the dignity of having their pants pulled back up. The description in the sources is graphic. I am happy to trot out the evolution of phrasing both in the sources and in this lead. There is no reason to change anything. And the Hindu Muslim interfaith prayer meeting in such abundance as to bear mentioning in the lead is ludicrous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @NedFausa: no need for religiously driven any more as we are mentioning Hindu mobs. Sorry, I should have taken it out earlier. The phrasing I would support now is: The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February. The riots are also called North East Delhi riots. Among others killed were a policeman, an intelligence officer, and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted. More than a week after the violence ended, hundreds of wounded were languishing in inadequately staffed medical facilities and corpses were being found in open drains. Many Muslims have remained missing." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan and Wareon – in accordance with the preceding concession, I removed "religiously driven" from the lead. NedFausa (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that but "by Hindu mobs" is still not supported by sources. Wareon (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

El_C, this editor Wareon is editwarring. Removing Hindu mobs while there is no consensus for that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's lead

I came here because I was requested by a number of people; my presence was welcomed by some administrators.

• Like many other South Asia related pages riven by ideological edit warring, I first fixed only the lead and it was sourced to the ideal of:

• (1) scholarly books printed by internationally known academic publishers, such as the university presses (Oxford, Cambridge, Columbia, Chicago, Harvard, ...),
• (2) journal articles in internationally known journals, especially review articles of literature,
• (3) Other tertiary sources such as Britannica, or well-worn textbooks used in undergraduate courses around the world, for WP: DUE and
• (4) major third-party international print newspapers with presence in South Asia.

• Other articles where I was approached to do the same are: 2019 Balakot airstrike, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, History of India. Much earlier I did the same for Indus Valley Civilisation, Indian rebellion of 1857, and much earlier India, Partition of India, British Raj, Company rule in India, Pakistan, Kashmir (and all its sub-articles), History of Pakistan, Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, and lord knows many others I can't recall this minute. All these articles had a large number edits made by editors attempting to infuse what I have come to call South-Asia-POV (i.e. edits that in some way UNDUEly promote some aspect of related to South Asia in articles).
• WP:Lead fixation has been an old problem on Wikipedia, and this approach of fixing the lead and then fixing the rest of the article is the result of a wide consensus among experienced content editors and administrators who have worked on South Asia related pages, among them are: @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @El C:, @Doug Weller:, @MilborneOne:. The approach goes back to Nichalp, now retired, the administrator and arbitrator who started the major drive for high-quality South Asia related articles on Wikipedia, included many FAs.
• In many instances, after fixing the lead, the rest of the article was fixed (an example is the FA India, which is now Wikipedia's oldest country FA), Company rule in India, British Raj (although its main body has degenerated somewhat); Presidencies and provinces of British India;
• in other instances, many parts of the main body were fixed (examples are Indus Valley Civilisation, History of India (which had gone off my watchlist and an IP (who is now banned) had restored many old edits), Partition of India, Mahatma Gandhi, Kashmir;
• in other instances some parts of the main body were fixed (examples are Subhas Chandra Bose, for which I had to write an entirely new article Death of Subhas Chandra Bose (as that was a big part of its controversial content), Indian rebellion of 1857 (on which Slatersteven has done splendid work in maintaining the article)
• and in some such as 2019 Balakot airstrike, Bhagat Singh, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf and 2020 Delhi riots only the lead was fixed (in the case of Shalwar kameez, and Pilaf a few subsections as well); the rest of the article had just too much to fix. I cannot stress this enough: in all these articles of the last-named category, the lead is not a summary of the article content; it has no connection. It can't: the article main body is in so much of a mess of little details that fixing it would require removal of the content and a rewrite which is more effort than available NPOV editing-power can manage.
• So when an edit is made, as was yesterday, in which outlandishly UNDUE content about Hindu-Muslim unity and interfaith prayer meetings was put in the lead on the basis of its presence in the article main body, major disservice was done, an insult to the truth and ultimately to the victims of violence. Please examine Hannah Ellis-X's Guardian article. It has a few throwaway sentences at the end about some Sikhs who saved some Muslims. Such stories, the exceptions that prove the rule are always available. But the Holocaust page does not have a peep on Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. Please be aware that I have experience both in creating NPOV content and removing POV content on Wikipedia's South Asia related pages. That doesn't mean I'm not required to play by the rules, but that I'm human; I have other commitments, even on Wikipedia. I cannot explain all of the background to all of the people all of the time. Please be aware also that edits I have mentioned above, or similar ones, have a long history of appearing in POV promotion on other Wikipedia pages which I have not forgotten, and which I will be trotting out if you take me to ANI. Wikipedia has to decide if the relentless promotion of POV is the bigger violation or occasional outbursts in the face of it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

How this is any relevant to the problems related with this article? Don't misuse this talk page to distract from the ongoing issues. Wareon (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a separate subsection, which addresses issues of editing the lead which has longstanding consensus on WP South Asia related articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's no surprise that the editor who has monopolized the lead now decrees, There is no reason to change anything. To justify his domination, he replays a familiar refrain, previously orchestrated here, here, and here: I came here because I was requested to by a number of people; my presence was welcome by some administrators. He omits diffs to substantiate that self-serving claim, but so far as I can tell, the number of people who summoned him = two: Kautilya3, who is not an administrator, and Unbiasedpov, who is likewise not an administrator; his presence was welcomed by two administrators: El C with a no less and Vanamonde93 sans . But however he was enthroned, there is no denying his reign. MediaWiki's Who Wrote That? tool does not yield a word count, but visually suggests that this editor has single-handedly accounted for at least 75% of the lead.

If nothing else, he must be commended for his frankness today. Only the lead was fixed, he explains, because the rest of the article had just too much to fix. I cannot stress this enough: ... the lead is not a summary of the article content; it has no connection. It can't: the article main body is in so much of a mess of little details that fixing it would require removal of the content and a rewrite which is more effort than available NPOV editing-power can manage. This is a brazen acknowledgement that he intentionally violated our Manual of Style, which advises: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. But of course, since he has the blessing of admins, he can trumpet his flouting of Wikipedia's relevant guideline with impunity.

In the face of such unchecked arrogance, there is no hope for the rest of us to collaboratively edit the lead. NedFausa (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• While the MOS does say that the lead should summarize the body, it is not unusual for the lead to be the prime focus of an article in the early stages. Over time, once traffic quiets down, the referenced material in the lead can be fleshed out in the body. I read the lead and, this is not meant as a comment on the content but rather on the writing, it seems all right to me.--regentspark (comment) 20:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is not in its early stages. It is 25 days old and concerns riots that ended nearly three weeks ago. Traffic has been relatively quiet for the past nine days. And we are not discussing the writing style; we are debating the lead's contents. NedFausa (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

If you are, then how did that the bit about Hindus and Muslims singing Kumbaya at interfaith prayer meetings (from lord knows when, three weeks ago?) creep back into the lead? Any clue what those neighborhoods are like? They are poor and traditional; the communities didn't mix socially to begin with; they never had; they didn't visit each other's houses, let alone join each other for dinner; the Muslims were careful to either send savviaN (sweet vermicelli noodles) after Ramzan, or if they were sure their Hindu friends were meat eaters, a cut of goat meat uncooked for Bakrid); the Hindus went to their temples, the Muslims to their mosque, but they never prayed together for heavens sakes (where would they have prayed and to whom?). There is collaboration between the communities; but that is at a higher level described in the caption of the second picture between the Government of Delhi, the Muslim Waqf board, and two hospitals run by old Christian organizations in India (St Stephens run by Anglicans and Holy Family by the Catholics. There is serious divide between the communities. Please read the signed article in Reuters, republished in the New York Times, on March 16. The Hindus do not want to hire Muslims; the Muslims are afraid for their lives. Read the articles in Deutche Welles, and watch the videos. Do you see any women with red dots on their forehead? To be precise, there are zero, i.e. 0.0000. The victims in the camps are all Muslim; they have nowhere to go to; if you understand Urdu, the old man is speaking of dehshat (دہشت, terror, panic) Who are the volunteers there? They are from St Joseph's Hospital in Ghaziabad. NedFausa, I have no idea what your issue is. You and I are not that far apart in our perspective on the news; but you are going after me for silly issues of process while serious violators of DUE are getting away with murder (elliptically and metaphorically speaking). Entirely perplexed. Please do some soul searching (and please don't come after me for saying that). The truth is more important than technical violations of WP MOS when such major life and death issues are involved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The preceding comment is clearly posted in the wrong section of this page. It belongs here or here. I recommend you move it to attract the attention of the editors involved. This section is about sensationalizing the FIRST LINE with gory details. NedFausa (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

PS The article is very much in its early states. The reporting on what happened is still crystalizing. The camps are facing management and public health problems in the face of coronavirus. The Delhi police is threatening to close them down. Their inhabitants are homeless or seriously traumatized—in one camp alone which has 1,500 occupants. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

PPS That discussion is closed; you have already made changes. This about the lead, to have for future reference, among other things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Again with the unchecked arrogance. You don't get to close our discussion, sir. This section is headed Since when did Wikipedia start sensationalising the FIRST LINE with gory details? It expressly concerns "Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs," which is still a prominent part of the lead's first sentence. NedFausa (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, I will make a post upstairs, but have you considered informing others about Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices:

• Check whether there's already a discussion on the same topic. Duplicate discussions (on a single page, or on multiple pages) are confusing and time-wasting, and may be interpreted as forum shopping.
• Avoid excessive emphasis: ALL CAPS and enlarged fonts may be considered shouting and are rarely appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously. Italics are often used for emphasis or clarity but should be avoided for long passages. Exclamation marks similarly should be used judiciously

In how many sections are we going to have this discussion? (I opened a subsection in keeping with Talk page guidelines.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment: Investigation

Which of the following wordings should be used in the "Investigation" section? — Newslinger talk 20:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Option 1 (from Special:Permalink/946814150#Investigation):

Some activists were charged with offences under the Indian Penal code and the Arms Act. Their friends and relatives alleged that they were tortured in custody.

Option 2 (adapted from Trojanishere's suggestion in a discussion above):

Ishrat Jahan, a councillor of the Congress party, has been arrested by the Delhi Police on the orders of a sessions court. She has been accused of murder, rioting, giving provocative speeches during communal tensions, and inciting a mob for an attack. Her friends and relatives alleged that she was tortured in custody.

Option 3 (first posted as a modification to option 2 by Souniel Yadav in [[1]]): −

Ishrat Jahan, a councillor of the Congress party and two others have been arrested by the Delhi Police on the orders of a sessions court. They have been accused of murder, rioting, giving provocative speeches during communal tensions, and inciting a mob for an attack. Their friends and relatives alleged that they were tortured in custody.

References

Survey (Investigation)

• Option 1 with the names of the activists included - As I have stated earlier, the activists who take leadership roles in the protests are not subject to privacy under WP:BLPNAME. Ishrat Jahan is also a former municipal councillor, which makes her a public figure. However, I do not believe that the details of the charges can be included at this stage, because it gives UNDUE weight to the police version of the narrative. The activists' version of the narrative is markedly different, as can be seen in the reference [3]. If a trial is held and more details become available, the issue can be revisited then. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As has been discussed before at Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME and the rest of the discussion, Ishrat was a councillor, and per WP:NPOL, which does not mention councillors, I would like to add that Councillors are not notable as it is not a major post. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Neither but lean towards option 1 Seems to be we either name all of the arrested activists or none.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3: lean towards option 3 - seems to be we either name all of the arrested people or none.Souniel Yadav (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: those are not public figures so WP:BLPCRIME and WP:SUSPECT apply..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 and speedy close: per Kautilya3, [[User:|SerChevalerie]] and SharabSalam Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1: I suppose that this option is a more balanced take on this matter. Aswin8 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 is more suitable I believe. Idealigic (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion (Investigation)

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. Please respond if we should name her as one of the inciters. Right now, a reference is made to her without naming her, with this sentence, "Some activists were charged with offences under the Indian Penal code and the Arms Act. Their friends and relatives alleged that they were tortured in custody"[176][177][178] in the, "Investigation" section. I want it to be changed (as Trojanishere proposes in the section at the top of this page) to, Ishrat Jahan, a councillor of the Congress party has been arrested by the Delhi Police on the orders of a sessions court. She has been accused of murder, rioting, giving provocative speeches during communal tensions and inciting a mob for an attack.[176][177] Her friends and relatives alleged that she was tortured in custody.[178]Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suspect this will not pass muster, its not exactly neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not an RfC, only your POV. Please withdraw. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Souniel Yadav, please do not withdraw solely at the urging of editors who themselves have demonstrated POV animus. I suggest we let others chime in. NedFausa (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

A: Comment on content not user B. Read WP:RFCBRIEF, this is neither brief nor neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I agree that this is not a proper WP:RfC. Please read the guidelines. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

An administrator yesterday invited Souniel Yadav to please feel free to create a proper RfC, in a new section, including with a clear RfC question. If the question is unclear or this RfC is otherwise improper, please let that or some other admin remove it for cause. Pressuring the OP to withdraw it before substantive comments have been elicited is unseemly. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Asking someone to do something does not equate to asking them to do it incorrectly. I am not asking them to remove it, I am telling them its badly formatted and will get closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Souniel Yadav, kindly read the discussion in detail as to understand why Ishrat can't be included in the article. In summary, it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The original wording of the RfC statement used by Souniel Yadav is indeed non-neutral, because it advances a point of view ("so can the former councillor Ishrat Jahan"). I've reformatted the RfC to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF. (I have no opinion on the issue.) — Newslinger talk 20:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, thanks for reformatting the RfC to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF.

SerChevalerie, Kautilya3, 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 guys are more experienced and so you should suggest better, neutral words (right now, not after a trial)!

NedFausa, Slatersteven, thanks for the support!Souniel Yadav (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, and just to clarify, none of you are restricted to just the two options in the RfC. If anyone would like to propose another wording to use in the article, feel free to add it as another option. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger, Souniel Yadav, please read the discussion at Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME in detail as to why we cannot add Ishrat Jahan's name. She is hardly notable compared to the rest, being a mere councillor. Even Tahir shouldn't be added to the article (since he too, was just a councillor), but at that time it seemed that he was important to the narrative, which is why his name was added as per consensus. Since we are heading towards a rewrite of the entire article with good high-quality RS, we might end up removing Tahir's name too. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Please be sure to note your opinion in the survey section above to ensure that the RfC closer takes it into consideration. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Then, the names of Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma should also be removed - they are not notable either!-Souniel Yadav (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

That is a separate issue, read wp:other and wp:point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course they are, per WP:NPOL. They are either MPs or MLAs, unlike Hussain and Jahan, who were just councillors. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, since you said, "Seems to be we either name all of the arrested activists or none.", I'd like to point out that no other activists are currently mentioned, only significant notable people (MLAs / MPs, actors, authors) who have been arrested are. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

from one of the sources "At least two activists", that implies there may have been more. Thus any wording must reflect that. We also do not mention only one if two are named.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I put it in plural. I hope you choose option 3 now at least!Souniel Yadav (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Which part of "we should name all or none" is addressed by naming one?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes there were more. Thanks for clarifying. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, since you don't mind naming the accused, please give another option with, "words you deem fit" (but I wouldn't like them being called activists - they are accused of incitement). I am averse to waiting for a trial which convicts her as it may take many years.-Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you asked, Which part of "we should name all or none" is addressed by naming one? I believe that only the ex-Councillor, Ishrat Jahan is notable and so, I proposed, "Option 3".-Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is this person notable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Tahir Hussain, Ishrat Jahan and Kapil Mishra, the chief inciters are notable people. The first two were Councillors and the last one was a minister in the Aam Aadmi Party Delhi Government.Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Local Councillors do not meet WP:POLITICIAN, so I ask again why are they notable (and why is no one else named notable)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma were never in public office. Tahir Hussain, Ishrat Jahan and Kapil Mishra, the chief inciters are notable people. The first two were Councillors and they carry a lot of clout. Tahir Hussain is known to have stocked weapons in his building for the riots. Kautilya3 also believes they should be named for the same reason (notability).Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

But they ARE in public office. Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma are currently MPs while Abhay Verma is an MLA. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

These are allegations, not facts. Nor do they meet out notability criteria (no where do our polices say "and for stockpiling arms"). And who are all these other people? they are not listed in any of the options in this RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Fine, I will avoid the other names, but if someone is booked by the police for incitement, don't they deserve a mention (at least Kautilya3 believes so)!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Souniel Yadav, kindly read WP:SUSPECT. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Also I am saying if more than one person is named or arrested we should list all of them, why is this one Councillor so important?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I want all to be mentioned. It doesn't right now!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Then why does your text not name all of them?Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant, Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma, but now I see that you are talking of naming Sabu and Khalid Ansari with Ishrat Jahan. I don't mind if they are named, but I don't think they're notable!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why would they not be notable?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

They don't hold any public office, that's why!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

And being a counsellor is not a criteria here for notability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I believed Kautilya3 when he said that Ishrat Jahan can be named as she is an ex-Councillor, but if she can't, my arguments for it are useless. However, it would be a travesty if the main conspirators, Tahir Hussain and Ishrat Jahan are not mentioned in this article.Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Revert during inuse and explanation

Anupam (talk · contribs) I still have the "inuse" sign in place. Please let me finish my edits before you revert them; I request that you self-revert. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for a link of socio-cultural good intentions, Hindu-Muslim unity to appear at the very end of the lead with half a dozen citations, not all reliable. The Sikhs and Hindus who rescued some besieged Muslims did not demonstrate socio-cultural good intentions, they did so for reasons that are too early to analyze. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The edits to the lead are now finished. I believe the lead is in a good place right now. It sums up the events from the perspective of a month later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

New Tweet calling upon people to edit the article

[2]"Give me a tweet, Vasily @1TweetOnlyPlz@UnSubtleDesi Still interested in correcting Wikipedia's article on the 2020 Delhi Riots? Administrators removed page protection. Now anyone can edit. The only restriction is one revert per day." Not a good idea as we can always reprotect it. There was another tweet, now deleted, calling people to this page. Doug Weller talk 11:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I would ask for PP to be reinstalled.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

It will be if there is a problem. Meanwhile I've been sent the tweet I couldn't see: "©Give me a tweet, Vasily@1TweetOnlyPlzReplying to @SolankiChiteri and @DeepikaBhardwaj Wikipedia's associated Talk page is not locked. You are welcome to discuss improvements to the 2020 Delhi Riots article. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020..." Doug Weller talk 12:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

And here I thought we were beyond the disruption. I'm still watching this page and will keep an eye out. Thanks for the heads up — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)