Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 10

Tense and wording in statements sourced to March 12
prefers:

I prefer something like:

While present perfect tense can be used to state things that happened at an unspecified time in the past, to me, although I will readily admit I am not an expert in grammar, saying "have taken to" implies that it is ongoing, which we do not have a source for.

As to "thickly-settled" I would prefer "densely-populated" which is a much more common phrase. "Thickly-settled" seems a bit quirky and seems to be most commonly used as a Massachusetts road sign.

—DIYeditor (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The Economist story was written on 13 March 2020. It says, "The religiously mixed and extremely crowded neighbourhoods in northeastern Delhi that were on fire in late February have cooled."  It was paraphrased as, "Although the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi by 12 March ..." (in the pattern of manner, place, and time) What specificity are you looking for in the source?  You have already made one grammatical error that I had to correct with a present perfect. (Again: I don't prefer it.  It was a fix for the previous grammatical error introduced by you).   Now you've added a viewpoint adverbial before a dependent clause.  "As of early March, although ..." I have no idea what you are attempting to do.  Please tell me.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also note widespread use of "thickly-settled" in academic publications in the 21st century with no reference to Massachusetts. You are attempting to change something in place. You have to add the coherent and cogent argument.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made it quite clear what I am trying to do, don't be obtuse. It was not phrased as "Although the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi by 12 March" that was my phrasing which I was in the process of refining, it had been phrased as "Although the violence has abated ... some Hindu leaders have taken to". Which, again, correct me if I am wrong, implies it is ongoing, which is unsourced and misleading. Also it was sourced to the New York Times not the Economist, and the date of the article was March 12. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do any RS say they have stopped doing this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bigger question is do any say they have not, because if we say "have taken to" we are implying they have not stopped, as far as I understand English, which I'm sure F&f will correct. We can say that as of the publication of our source something is true, not afterward. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote that on 13 March 2020. See diff  The present perfect was entirely appropriate.  It has since been edited, rephrased, docked, expanded dozens of times.  Please don't mischaracterize my edits by saying, "I prefer ..."  Please don't.  Please also don't use "obtuse" as a descriptor of my cognitive ability, sensitivity, or motivation.  There are several ways to finesse the statement without resorting to the errors you had introduced.  You could have posted here in the first place.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Always a bit thorny. We are not a newspaper and should always write in the past tense (after all eventually something will finish). The problem here is that this is a very contentious topic with a fair amount of POV pushing. Thus I can see why we need to be very careful to be seen to not be taking sides.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to post to the talk page about every small edit. The tense no longer made sense, and I would say never makes sense for an article in the manner it was employed because of this very problem. As soon as it's written it becomes outdated. Let's talk about how to finesse the phrasing; that's what I'm here for. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How about, "After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders continued to conspicuously exhibit Hindus whom they claimed were victims of Muslim violence, attempting thereby to reshape the accounting of events, but also in the process inflaming hostility towards Muslims?" NYT phrasing is of 13 March is: "The religiously mixed and extremely crowded neighborhoods in northeastern Delhi that were on fire in late February have cooled. But some Hindu politicians continue to lead so-called peace marches, trotting out casualties of the violence with their heads wrapped in white medical tape, trying to upend the narrative and make Hindus seem like the victims, which is stoking more anti-Muslim hatred."   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with DIYeditor that "parade" is POV here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Counter (WP:CLAIM): "After the violence had abated in the densely-populated mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders continued to conspicuously exhibit Hindu casualties, attempting to reshape the accounting of events in a pro-Hindu light, but also in the process inflaming hostility towards Muslims." The quote from the source does not explicitly say the leaders claimed the Hindus were victims of Muslim violence although one might draw that inference, nor does the source cast doubt on whether these Hindus were injured by Muslims. I still feel that "thickly-settled" is a bit quirky compared to "densely-populated"; why avoid the more common way of phrasing it? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about Hindu casualty. Good point. I don't see a case for "densely populated," even if I agree to remove "thickly settled," and I do not.  The tenements consist of back-to-back, side-to-side houses of small footprint, resettled villages, villages built upon after the villagers sold their properties for good money; they are extremely crowded in population, construction.  The lanes are crowded with pedestrians.  Besides, "abate" is Anglo-Saxon, as are thickly and settled.  Densely and populated are not; it makes for a  jarring construction among other things.   It is used all the time, see OED example of Winston Churchill, " The town of Coniston..was a tract of country about ten miles by ten, the most thickly settled portion of which was the village of Coniston, consisting of twelve houses." The main point, though, is that extremely crowded is different from densely populated. Pro-Hindu light" is POV in my view; it is implied; the NYT doesn't quite say that.  How about, "After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders continued to conspicuously exhibit Hindu casualties, attempting to reshape the accounting of events, but also in the process inflaming hostility towards Muslims  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument about "thickly settled" and "abated" both being Anglo-Saxon is difficult for me to grasp. Anglo-Saxon words are routinely mixed with words of various French, Greek, Latin, etc. origin in modern English. It would be hard to form any sentence without doing so. Indeed in your quote of Churchill he does so. It's not like we are coming up with scientific compound words and need to match Greek with Greek, Latin with Latin. While it is only an essay, WP:PLAINENGLISH is relevant here. This does not feel like a fruitful dispute though so I am not going to waste any more time on it at this point. Your version of the sentence works for me otherwise. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits supported with inaccurate or insufficient edit summaries
Dear, In the edit, with diff, in which he removes an edit of mine, asks in the edit summary, " "fully" two-thirds is different from two-thirds how, exactly?" I am offering the reasons below, but may I request that these questions be asked first on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries when the editor in question is not sure about the edit. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * fully: The adverb "fully" is used to mean "the whole of; as much as," (OED, subscription only) or 1 : in a full manner :  to a full degree :   2 :  at least
 * 1943  (OED) Triumphs of Engin. 115/2   It took fully ten years to get all this early work completed.
 * 2015  (OED) Globe & Mail (Toronto) (Nexis) 1 Sept. a12   Fully two-thirds of the vehicles bore New Brunswick licence plates.
 * (Webster's)


 * The expression has good precedence in publications of academic (university) publishers (presses).
 * Quote: "intentions of the translators who produced, in the course of several years of hard work, a translation of all of the bible's own words were it not for the fact that fully two thirds of the General Prologue to the Wycliffite Bible, chapters 3 through 11,"
 * Quote: " careful replication of Ainsworth's early work showed that 49% of the Bielefeld infants were anxious-avoidant, and fully two-thirds were not securely attached"
 * Quote: "In the late 1960s—at the very height of the Vietnam protests—an average of barely one-third of Americans endorsed these cynical views; by the early 1990s fully two-thirds of all Americans concurred."
 * Quote: "plea of being married," and that fully two-thirds of St. Vincent females had given up working in the field, though Marshall comments that he probably meant two-thirds no longer worked regularly rather than rejecting all estate employment."
 * Finally, it is used in encyclopedias. Pulitzer prize-winning academic Joseph J Ellis says in his Britannica article on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, "Sally Hemings had become pregnant only when Jefferson was present at Monticello, a significant revelation because he was away fully two-thirds of the time."
 * I have used it because there are two sources (a) NY Times which says two-thirds of 53, and (b) Guardian which says three-fourths of 51 identified. It is one of those instances in which "fully two thirds" is appropriate, instead of "at least" which could mean more than 3/4's of 53 for which we do not have a warrant.
 * I request that NedFausa self-revert.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In another edit, with diff, NedFausa has removed "conspicuously" from the construction "some Hindu leaders have taken to conspicuously parading alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims." with edit summary, "remove redundant word – such parading is by definition conspicuous." But my sentence was a paraphrase of the NY Times sentence, "But some Hindu politicians continue to lead so-called peace marches, trotting out casualties of the violence with their heads wrapped in white medical tape, trying to upend the narrative and make Hindus seem like the victims, which is stoking more anti-Muslim hatred." But "trot out" (with meaning, "to bring forward (a person, an opinion, etc.) for or as for inspection or approval (OED)" is similar in meaning to "conspicuous" ( Obvious to the mental eye, plainly evident; attracting notice or attention." Parade on the other hand can have other meanings of "parade (v)", i.e. to march in a group, to make an ostentatious display," neither of which the alleged victims, who were presumably injured enough to be rendered less than agile, were reliably doing Rather, the meaning here is displaying (parading)  in locations and manner for the injuries to be   plainly evident. As before, this construction is used in 21st-century scholarly literature:
 * Quote: "By conspicuously parading in their finery, religious and political elites asserted their superior status."
 * Quote: "When Socrates noticed that Antisthenes was rather conspicuously parading his torn and worn out garment he humorously took him to task, .."
 * Quote: "After conspicuously parading it in view of the other regiments the rumours of losing an eagle ceased. "
 * Quote: "Opportunistic brokers were able to stoke this fear by selling houses in white neighborhoods to black families or conspicuously parading black home buyers in white neighborhoods."
 * I request here too that NedFausa self-revert.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Both "fully two thirds" and "conspicuously parading" come off as editorializing and POV. What is the point of emphasizing that it amounts to 2/3rds beyond just saying it amounts to 2/3rds? As far as conspicuously parading, I would change both words. Even just "parading" has a certain tilt to it beyond stating bare facts. Just because academic publications do at times use POV or emphatic language does not mean an encyclopedia should in its own voice. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What is "come of as?" To whom?  To you?  Or to some touchstone of the English language or its usage.  I have just given you the OED and Webster's the two ultimate references for BE and Ame, and all you have is "come of as?" Besides,  there are two sources.  One says 2/3rds the other 3/4s.  Such emphasis is entirely appropriate.  I have given you an example from Britannica, written by a Pulitzer-prize winning academic. Would you like to go at with me one-on-one, referring to the best modern sources on usage and English syntax?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS ;Britannica


 * Miocene Epoch Fully

half of the mammalian families known today are present in the Miocene record.
 * Pluto's moons Charon, by far the largest, is fully half the size of Pluto. It revolves around Pluto—more accurately, the two bodies revolve around a common centre of mass
 * Altitude On the average, fully half the water in the atmosphere lies below 0.25 km (about 0.2 mile), and satellite observations over the United States in April revealed
 * Organized labour but even so, until World War II fully three-quarters of the active population was engaged in farming.
 * Juno Beach (World War II) The first assault wave landed at 0755 hours, 10 minutes past H-Hour and fully three hours after the optimum rising tide.

There are dozens and dozens of other examples in Britannica. Just how much editorializing are they doing? I understand your points, and thanks for them, but ultimately we need some references to rely on. Anyway, I think I'm done with editing this article. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) , I'm not sure what you're asking me. But I'll venture to say that as long as the restrictions the page is subject to have not been violated, this is a content dispute that should be resolved in the usual way — through article talk page discussion, or if that reaches an impasse, pertinent dispute resolution requests. If you do find that Arbitration enforcement is necessary, I encourage you to submit a well-documented report at AE. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how much attention I can devote to this article, as a single admin, as I am rather busy on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) with the world-wide pandemic. El_C 00:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what to say. Obviously, I know the WP rules; but, equally, when someone keeps nipping at the heels of my edits (pretty much all content creation in the lead has been done by me) and has no reason to offer than personal preference, it begins to look like disruption.  I am merely pointing that out.  You will not find too many other examples of arguments supported by valued academic references, to which, nothing except personal like or dislike is offered as a counterpoint.  Eventually, I will tire of this article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is one last one. In a third edit, with this diff, and edit summary," "The violence meted out to Muslims is viewed to have been targeted" – could this writing possibly be more pretentious? ," changing my sentence to, "Muslims were targeted by violence." But as you will see:
 * The expression "violence meted out to" is anything but pretentious, having been used in academic literature in the 21st century:
 * See here.
 * However, "were targeted by violence," is a hard to find expression, appearing in just one run-on sentence in an academic publication: see here. I request again that NedFausa self-revert.  I will now bow out.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS El_C. :) I'd rather you work on the pandemic.  That is more important.  Thanks.  :)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

, thanks. Glad you understand. Still, I'm going to, hopefully, stir you both in the right direction with the following. Indeed, pretentious is not an acceptable descriptor. , please stop with the battleground approach — I've already warned you to tone it down once before. Fowler&amp;fowler, you have made missteps, too, as far as civility goes. Hopefully, that will be the end of that as far as both of you are concerned. These times, especially, call for goodwill and positive collaboration, despite everything. That said, as mentioned, if either of you contend that there has been disruptive or tendentious editing, I recommend making use of AE. Because the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, you have access to this superior forum where a well-documented report gets to be evaluated by a quorum of uninvolved admins. El_C 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. All the best in your new endeavors.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , please note that when you write an edit summary, "please, let's stick to what the cited source reports; Washington Post does not state "Evidence has arisen" – merely that witnesses said so, which would be testimony not evidence,"  as you did here, you are disregarding the confused, complex, process by which these edits appear.  First, this is drafting by a committee with intervening reverts, which have typically involved mangling the text; second, the sources themselves are constantly updated in their online versions.  To be sure, the WaPo text was not updated, but it was one part of two cited sources, one of which, from the NY Times, did say "Evidence has emerged," and had several bulleted items constituting said evidence, only one of which were the videos.  So, "Witnesses ..." is entirely appropriate for the second sentence, and thank you for that; but for the first, "Evidence has arisen ..." is appropriate as well.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI, I followed your advice and made use of AE. Here is link. NedFausa (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Trimming lead again
You cannot remove or move a large part of the lead as you did in this edit. Please self-revert. There was no consensus on the talk page for this edit. It is not enough to post your claim and make an edit. The text had been in place for three weeks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  18:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I support F&f's above claim. We haven't achieved consensus for this. Kindly self-revert. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am perplexed to see this brought up after all that discussion on the one sentence in dispute when this change should've been pretty obvious and it included my "by 12 March" language. I,, and explicitly on this page, and  via an edit "thank" (which of course I could not expect you to have seen) supported trimming the lead in the section  so I made a WP:BOLD edit to do so. I moved the timeline ("play-by-play") details to their own section in the article body. There is nothing other than 1RR stopping you or  from reverting to dispute that this matched current consensus reflected in that section. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support 's creation of an Overview section populated by content moved from the overlong lead. This makes the lead less daunting without sacrificing essential information. NedFausa (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

A reminder to participants that per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version is the version that should be displayed while a dispute remains unresolved. Again, if you reach an impasse here, there other dispute resolution requests — like a Request for Comment, which does seem to be where the dispute is headed toward. *nudge nudge* El_C 22:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing the point, just trying to understand. When you remind us that "per WP:ONUS, the status quo ante version is the version that should be displayed while a dispute remains unresolved," I take it you mean this sentence in the policy: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. In this instance, however, content per se is undisputed. There is disagreement merely over its placement. It's unclear to me how WP:ONUS applies here. Thanks for your help. NedFausa (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The state of the version depends on its overall structure at any given diff. Depending on what counts as longstanding text, there may be a need to have a starting point which neither side would be particularly comfortable with. Maybe from that a compromise will emerge? Let's hope. In that sense, I think it should also be up to participants here to decide on what counts as longstanding text to begin with, here, locally. El_C 23:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point NedFausa. I have restored it to the lead anyway, while keeping some minor tweaks to tense/dates I had made in the edit and making one more ("encountered apprehended threats" was quite stilted and potentially confusing, replaced with "countered perceived threats"). For what it's worth, I felt there were 4 editors in favor of trimming the lead vs. 1 opposed so that consensus had been reached. A dissenting party cannot hold up consensus indefinitely by denying that it exists. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt it's been codified as policy, but in practice it seems that a dissenting party can hold up consensus with the support of an administrator who, he maintains, "welcomed" him to edit this article. As your self-reversion shows, there are advantages to having authoritative patrons. NedFausa (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I resent that insinuation. Please do not cast aspersions on me. I am able to be even-handed in this matter. I favoured neither version, and I, in fact, allude to the possibility that you may need to revert back to an earlier version, from before this dispute has arisen, because neither side has the benefit of longstanding text. What is longstanding text —if you can agree on that— that should be the version that displays while this dispute is being resolved. El_C 23:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As suggests, one of you should start a Request for Comments to trim the lead (I support it)!&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't get why you all are so hung up on the length of the lead. This is a new article that deals with a recent event and the expectation that the lead will stick to MOS rules is unrealistic. In a sense, the lead is a summary of what the article should contain and you all would be better off fleshing out the body content and then returning to the lead. At that point, most of the references in the lead can disappear and it will be a lot clearer as to what should be in the lead and what should not be there. If you think some statements are incorrect, or that the lead reflects a certain point of view, that's a different matter and you should address that directly rather than indirectly. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do believe that the lead is not neutral but I don't want to get blocked for doing something when a 1revert rule is being observed here. I would like this to be the 4th sentence in the lead, "When in response to Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men began to gather, violence erupted. Initially, Hindu and Muslim attacks were equally lethal.[32] Most deaths were attributed to gunfire.[33] By 25 February 2020, the balance had shifted.[32]". Perhaps you could help make it the 4th sentence!&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest framing that as a request, with reliable sources of course. But this is exactly what I mean above. If this is supported by reliable sources, it should be in the first subsection of the timeline (I don't see it there). If it stays in there, it would become de-facto consensus and then could be added to the lead. --regentspark (comment) 15:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have not edited Wikipedia much, but let me try. This sentence has been in the lead for a long time (from 12th or 13th March), but I request you to make it the 4th sentence in the lead, "Initially the violence was two-way, with Hindus and Muslims attacking with equal deadliness, Most deaths were attributed to gunfire. ". Thanks!&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , almost 24 hours have passed and nobody seems to have objections, so can I go ahead and add those sentences?&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Well for a start the sources do not say initially, they seem to be saying eventually.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

24 hours is nothing. I object, and object strongly. The first paragraph of the lead in such an article summarizes the salient issues. This is not one. It is for sure the POV of people who are making out the violence to be Hindu-Muslim, not anti-Muslim, but not the perspective of the major sources a month later. Accordingly, it is mentioned, but in the recounting of events later in the lead. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with above comment and believe that the continuing arguments and (slow) edit-warring over the lede is (a) creating a battleground atmosphere, and (b) preventing the development of the rest of the article. Therefore, as a discretionary sanction, I am imposing a moratorium on making any further unilateral edits to the lede till April 15 2020; until then, any changes to the lede from the current version should first be proposed and discussed on the talkpage and a clear consensus for the change established. Any objections to this discretionary sanction can be discussed with me or appealed at the admin noticeboard but note that, in the meantime, evading it will lead to the edits being reverted and the editor may be sanctioned by any uninvolved admin.
 * On a purely advisory note, I would recommend that the involved editors collaborate to improve the article body first, before taking another look at the lede itself. Abecedare (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . This is a really useful admin action. I second the suggestion that involved editors focus on the body of the article and leave the lead alone for the time being. --regentspark (comment) 15:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As an Administrator I confirm my support for this sanction and for the advisory note. Doug Weller  talk 15:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I echo my colleagues above. Thanks for taking the time, Abecedare. El_C 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change (ancestral villages) to the lead during moratorium
Reword to clarify that Muslims, not their ancestral villages, were unsure of their safety.

¶2 final sentence should be changed from
 * Even in areas untouched by the violence, some Muslims had left for their ancestral villages, fearful of their safety in India's capital.

to
 * Even in areas of India's capital untouched by the violence, some Muslims, unsure of their safety, left for their ancestral villages.

Please note: while this is not a substantial change to the lead's status quo, under the terms of the moratorium it must first be discussed on this talkpage. Editors should not execute or reject the proposed change until a clear consensus is established. NedFausa (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * in keeping with the source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain your comment. The pertinent quote from the cited source is: 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. It does not indicate that the ancestral villages were fearful of their safety, which is how our clumsily imprecisely worded lead now reads. NedFausa (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC) revised 17:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as I said in keeping with the source, I am agreeing with the edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed change. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Little Jack Horner, Sat in the corner, Eating a Christmas pie;" Did you ever ask your elementary school teacher why the corner was eating the pie? The participial phrase (e.g. "eating a Christmas pie," or "fearing for their safety," (NYTimes phrasing)) or the adjectival phrase "fearful of/for their safety," "fearful of dangers in India's capital," or "fearful of unsafety in India's capital"  all serve the same purpose.  They are all commonly used in this fashion, they qualify the subject (of a verb).  One in a while there is the issue of the dangling modifier in compound sentences, but here there is no verb attached to "villages," just as there is none attached to "corner." You could legitimately (i.e. traditionally) object that "fearful of safety" should really be "fearful of unsafety in India's capital," or "fearful of dangers in India's capital." But there is no reason to disambiguate when disambiguation is not required. In other words, Mother Goose could have had: "Little Jack Horner, Sat in the corner, Fearful of Chrismas pie." And no one would comprehend that the corner was fearful. If you want to change it to "fearful of the unsafety in India's capital," or "fearful of the dangers in India's capital," I have no objection.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides, as admins Abecedare, RegentsPark, and Doug Weller have pointed out, we should be employing the lead to expand the rest of the article, not preternaturally focusing on the phrasing in the lead; the lead is a template of sourcing and DUE.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

F&f makes a good point regarding the grammar. I support that a change is necessary, but let's review all our options. Editors, please note that this article is to use "Indian English", and one might argue that the phrasing is a bit confusing for most readers (while not necessarily implying what NedF says it does). SerChevalerie (talk) 05:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose change - "Fearful of their safety in India's capital" is making a point, viz., the irony of India's citizens feeling unsafe in their own capital. Putting "India's capital" with "areas" is pointless. (1) On the other hand, I wouldn't mind changing "areas untouched by violence" to "areas of Delhi untouched by violence". When I read it the first time, I wasn't clear which areas were being talked about until reaching the end of sentence, and had to re-read the whole sentence again. (2) Substituting "home villages" by "ancestral villages" is a perfectly fine thing to do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed as ❌, stale after archiving. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Aftermath
Have created a draft here on my sandbox. As pointed out, it has a few issues, but I am hoping that other editors can chip in and work on the cohesion.

, would like your inputs since you reverted my addition - I had covered a lot more than just the police's lack of action. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * true, but that addition made me doubt the rest as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, its consoled not condoled. There may be more grammatical errors.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , as per source, Replying to debate on Delhi riots in Lok Sabha, Amit Shah condoled the lives lost during the violence. Will still double check for any other grammatical errors. Any other concerns? SerChevalerie (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Is this an exact translation? Because if it is its very bad English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Why were the students arrested, for being at a railway station?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , have corrected the grammatical errors to the best of my abilities. However, do point out any other significant changes that you would like to be seen. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Before I start this, remove the comments about police actions during the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And remove anything else that discuses what people did, during the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , kindly list out what all changes you would like to see, instead of listing them out one by one. Have currently kept that line because the article doesn't mention that information. If you insist that it doesn't belong in the "aftermath" section, kindly point out where in the article it can be placed. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And you are free to edit in my sandbox. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have made a start.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you cannot cite Firstpost, Hindustan Times, whatever other Indian sources you have cited. In the lead, only third-party international sources are the standard with a few allowances for obvious factual details for The Hindu, Indian Express, Calcutta Telegraph, and Statesman.  That should be the standard in the main body as well; otherwise, people will stuff all sorts of stuff into the various sections and then arrogate the right to add them to the lead.  So, please remove Indian sources. In fact, I would suggest: hold off on creating the section.  Let the lead first firm up.  There are plenty international sources.  Nearly a month later, we don't need a blow by blow account.  I oppose the creation of this at this time.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fowler&fowler, there is no such policy that Indian sources, especially ones from major newspapers, cannot be used on Wikipedia. Given that the riots took place in India, most of the coverage of the riots will come from that country itself. WP:RSN is the place to determine whether individual sources are reliable or not. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 14:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I second here. Besides, if the rest of the body (besides the lead) uses sources like Hindustan Times, why not this section? By that logic we have no almost no content in our article left except the lead. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have vast experience in working on controversial South-Asia-related pages. The only ones that  have some kind of stability are the ones that follow the general guidelines of Fowler&fowler's Lead section above. You can Wikilawyer this to death, accuse me of WP:Arrogance, WP:Mania, WP: Monomania, WP:Megalomania, etc etc.  but that is the truth.  It is your choice.  Are you guys opposing me because you can't stand my guts or opposing me because I'm wrong.  For I've seen nothing on the latter  yet.  I've seen the kind of gloriously unreliable POV you have added in the Hindu-Muslim brotherhood sections.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , if that's your stand then a whole rewrite of the article is due. And please, we didn't add any info in the Hindu-Muslim brotherhood sections. In any case, moving this discussion ahead, if you find the POV of any of the content I'm proposing to add in the "Aftermath" section is not up to the mark, then please point that out. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, has stated that he will be doing it. He is highly experienced. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Update  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , noted. Now, about the POV of my proposal as part of this discussion? I'm willing to make changes as requested. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph will need to go in its entirety. It is overly undue.  The Ravi Shakar character is a charlatan who likes to make an appearance to publicize himself, not solve any problems.  A few years ago he bent to existing environmental rules in Delh, had a large convention in a marsh, an important ecological niche, in the Jumna river.  The marsh is still not recovered.  I've already said this: These neighborhoods are poor.  The Hindus and Muslims don't mix.  They don't socialize, go to each others' houses for a meal.  After Ramzan, a few Muslims send savvian (sweet vermicelli noodles) to some Hindu friends; on Bakrid if the Muslims are absolutely sure their Hindu friends are meat-eaters, they send a cut of meat (goat), always uncooked.  Do you seriously think after being brutalized in such a horrendous fashion with 3/4 deaths Muslim, they would be going to an "interfaith" meeting?! It was probably some rescue opportunists from everywhere else but the neighborhoods. Also, we can't make summary style a list of events.  I learned this from the two mainstays of the India page Nichalp and Saravask in 2007.  You write a general sentence that gives a perspective on something (sourced to highly reliable sources), and then you may here and there add a vignette to illustrate the general principle.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PS I apologize about the spelling errors. Somehow a spell checker is now a part of my editor and it is making idiotic changes such as marsh to march.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PPS Also, if you look at videos of the Mustafabad camp. There are no Hindus there.  It was organized by the Delhi government and Muslim Wakf board.  All doctors and volunteers are from St Stephens Hospital (Anglican) and Holy Family hospital, and St Josephs Hosp Ghaziabad (both Catholic).  There is 0.000 chance that people suffering from PTST would be trusting Hindus.  The is the kind of interfaith collaboration (sans Hindus, for sure) that bears mentioning.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PPPS See here.  See also the second infobox picture and its sources.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the highly inflammatory and political remarks by User:Fowler&fowler ("The Hindus and Muslims don't mix. They don't socialize, go to each others' houses for a meal.") are false. In normal day to day life in India, Hindus and Muslims live, work, and celebrate life with one another (see Exhibit A). Video footage from reliable sources proves that throughout the riots Hindus and Muslims demonstrated unity in many areas (see Exhibit B and Exhibit C). Wikipedia will absolutely not be used as a vehicle to promote communal viewpoints. AnupamTalk 15:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we let others chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to point to the disastrously unreliable POV that is being promoted here. Exhibit B above is about the neighborhood Noor e Ilahi.  Maybe one lane in it was protected, but the neighborhood was very much vandalized.  See here 1 and here 2, or here 3  I could easily produce three more.  In any case that is not "Aftermath," only a lull in one lane.  The aftermath is homeless Muslims, dead Muslims, traumatized (mostly Muslim) families; threats of corona virus in the camps. Missing Muslims for many more were killed.  What sort of communalism are you accusing me of.  Please have a Wikipedia-wide RfC and we'll see what sorts of sources line up on either side.  Seriously.  Let's do it and settle the matter once and for all.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please clarify. When you respond to by suggesting that we let others chime in, are you insinuating that Anupam should stop commenting? He has posted two substantive entries (not minor fixes) today—here and here. I find both of those observations incisive and on point. Whereas another editor, whom I shall not name out of a sense of decency, has commented four times as often during the same timeframe without your suggesting that he let others chime in. Do I detect a double standard? NedFausa (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Also comment on content not users. If a user is acting up report them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you help me with sources for the same, specifically the bits on "The aftermath is homeless Muslims, dead Muslims, traumatized (mostly Muslim) families; threats of corona virus in the camps. Missing Muslims...". I am considering a rewrite of my proposed copy with your inputs. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will post the sources, all reliable ones, later today. Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you. Meanwhile, I have created a new draft in my sandbox, one that uses only "high-quality third party sources", as recommended by you., pinging you since you were so kind as to correct the grammar for the old draft. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

and, did you manage to take a look at the new draft? It uses a chunk of the current lead (mildly rephrased). SerChevalerie (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Have added the heavily revised version using parts of the current lead to the article. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And other stuff, only add what has been agreed and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

, done as requested. Can we discuss the other points I had added? As per the suggestions of, I covered the condition of the people in the refugee camps and the uncertain future they faced (including the bit about coronavirus). In addition to this, I had also covered the following in the new draft: All of the above is sourced to independent third-party international sources, again as per Fowler&fowler's suggestion. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Police complicity with rioters
 * 2) Police using pressure tactics to prevent victims from reporting cases
 * 3) Volunteer work in the relief camps
 * 4) Parliamentary debate, with a fresh outlook
 * I haven't taken a good look at your sandbox yet. Will do so later today.  I note that the parliamentary debate bit does not all seem to be sourced.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Please note that the full paragraph on the parliamentary debate is sourced at the end. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You do not get to say "done as requested" unless you only do as requested. Yes we can discuss everything else, and you can add the rest when (and if) it is agreed you can add it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have been listening to the suggestions offered by you and F&f, when offered. Let me make it clear that I was doing so in WP:GOODFAITH but have since learned better. Do let me know what you think about the additions of the proposed content. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For a start why do we need an extended quote in a cite?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I never used to do it, but F&f's lead and the subsequent attempts of POV pushing in it made me realise that disruptive editing will be common here for a while. Keeping the quotes in the lead has worked out for the best, since we can quickly identify POV pushing and/or content disputes. I assure you that in the longer scheme of things, the quotes can go, but I found them necessary for now. In any case, most of the larger quotes and cites I've used in my draft are copied from the content from the lead. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Rescuing this discussion from the archive and pinging active editors, , and  to try to achieve some consensus for this. Please refer to my summary of proposed edits above and offer your inputs. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This rescued discussion is very long. For convenience, please point to your summary of proposed edits above for which you now seek consensus. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I am repeating my summary for convenience, as requested by : The following are the proposed edits currently in my sandbox: All of the above is sourced to independent third-party international sources, again as per F&f's suggestion. Feel free to edit in my sandbox. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Condition of victims in relief camps i.e. no livelihoods, no homes, diseases, coronavirus threat (as per Fowler&fowler's suggestion)
 * 2) Police complicity with rioters
 * 3) Police using pressure tactics to prevent victims from reporting cases
 * 4) Volunteer work in the relief camps
 * 5) Parliamentary debate
 * , thank you for your edit in my sandbox. However, could you please explain? The source does mention that the interviewee admits that the police turned a blind eye to his rioting. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I hate the redundant phrase "conspicuously paraded" and have argued over and over against it here. What other kind of parading is there? As soon as I saw that, I stopped reading your sandbox. NedFausa (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: Have put box brackets around the parts copied from F&f's lead (they need to be properly extracted from the lead)., if you don't like any phrasing then feel free to change it in my sandbox. As I said, I am open to suggestions. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of highlighting the bracketed text in your sandbox for easier recognition. Having done so, I'm disappointed that you have not kept up with revisions in the article space. For example, compare in each instance what's in your sandbox with what's now in the lead.

Sandbox [Many Muslims have since left these neighbourhoods. Even in areas of Delhi which were not touched by the violence, some Muslims left for their ancestral villages as they were unsure of their safety.]

Lead By February's end, many Muslims had left these neighbourhoods. Even in areas untouched by the violence, some Muslims had left for their ancestral villages, fearful of their safety in India's capital.

Sandbox [During the day, Hindus and Muslims choose to avoid each other, while at night they block the lanes to their respective neighbourhoods with barriers.]

Lead During the day Hindus and Muslims avoid each other; at night they block their lanes with barriers.

Sandbox [Some Hindu leaders later paraded alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the account of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims. Gangs of Hindus appeared in several Muslim neighbourhoods in the days preceding the Hindu festival of Holi, celebrated on 11 March 2020, to scare Muslims into abandoning their homes.]

Lead Some Hindu leaders have taken to parading alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims. Gangs of Hindus appeared in several Muslim neighbourhoods in the days preceding the Hindu festival of Holi, celebrated in 2020 on 9 March, to scare Muslims into abandoning their homes.

Note that the date of Holi in your sandbox is factually wrong.

I think you should remove this unhelpfully restored talk page section "Aftermath" and instead present your changes one by one with up-to-date text so that editors can see exactly what you're proposing. NedFausa (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for all the help. I admit, I haven't kept the bits taken from the lead updated (assuming that we could always "move" the updated bits, but then realising that the "moving" will turn into "a slow process of extraction"), which does sound like a mistake now that you mention it. The main reason I've asked for help from you and the other editors is to reduce/remove any cohesion issues. If no other editors mind, I'll create new sections with my proposed changes. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Is the lead finished?
Wikipedia's Manual of Style advises: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. [Emphasis added.] ... As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate.

Today the editor who wrote most of the lead declared: "The edits to the lead are now finished." Note he doesn't say, "My edits to the lead are now finished." No, he has seemingly slammed the door on everyone who in good faith would like to improve the page's principal element.

Despite his pronouncement, the lead is too long. It consists of six paragraphs, not four, composed of 700 densely packed words that do not provide a concise overview. I respectfully commend editors to Wikipedia's article Concision, which discusses using only the words necessary to convey an idea. Please, let's strive for brevity not bravura in our lead. NedFausa (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I support more work on the lead. Trimming to 4 paragraphs would be good. Right now it reads more like an in depth timeline which is not the right approach. Some elements also seem repetitive. I do get a bit of a WP:OWNy sense from F&F and I hope he will not obstruct further work here, should consensus support it. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not start new threads when no consensus was reached about trimming the first time, including in the comment by an admin. See Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_8.  Again, the lead is being used to write the rest of the article, starting with the Aftermath section by . This has been the precedent and pattern followed in all highly-trafficked India-related articles for upward of 13 years.  If you dispute this, please have an RfC at WT:INDIA, failing which take it to a higher Wikipedia forum of your choice.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The rules about the lead are not etched in stone. Please read Today's Featured Article, Introduction to viruses.  The lead has five paragraphs and 505 words.  For an article of 3962 words that constitutes 12.72%.  This article has a lead of 700 words with a total article size of 5512 words.  That is 12.69%.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed the lead to four thematic paragraphs.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing the lead from six to four paragraphs simply by joining paragraphs without reducing word count by even one is smoke and mirrors. The lead remains overlong. NedFausa (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How so? Please make a post at today's Featured Article on WP Main page, per my post above.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're now engaged in Whataboutism. I said the lead of 2020 Delhi riots is overlong, to which you retort What about Today's Featured Article! You seemingly missed it, but shared here today his "bit of a WP:OWNy sense from F&F." That policy states: No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Please let other editors weigh in on the question I posed: Is the lead finished? NedFausa (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN carefully. It also says, "'In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If the behaviour continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership."
 * Thus far I am the one who has been citing citing chapter and verse of English usage and syntax on the Talk page, with no response than personal dislike, accusations of ownership, or of a smoke and mirrors show.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As it is the lead we are talking about, and I am the primary contributor to the lead, please do bear WP policy in mind.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead needs work. It's a strange combination of being well-written but badly-composed. It doesn't matter what WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. The lead should serve as an overview of the body of the article. In its current state, it doesn't. It includes details that are not even described in the body (chants, for example). These things need to be excised and moved to the body, sentence by sentence, until the lead adequately summarizes the body without introducing extraneous information. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_8  carefully.  Again: the lead is not a summary yet of article content.  It has been written and stabilized (in DUE and reliable sourcing) to serve as a template for the rewriting of the article's main body.  It is the main body that is mostly nonsense, the result of compromises of the moment achieved with 1RR dangling.  This approach, the reverse of usual WP pieties, is a longstanding one followed in highly trafficked POV-ridden pages on South Asian topics.  I've restored the first paragraph in the lead to its previous more coherent state.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I already had read it. Nothing there convinces me that you are taking the right approach. What we have now is a lead section that has little or no relationship with the body, and the current lead includes many unnecessary details that give the impression of being there for no other reason than to make a point. Instead of mangling a high-traffic article like this, the correct approach would have been first to remove undue-weight claims in the lead, then bit by bit fix the body and the lead at the same time. What's being done now in main space should be done instead in a sub-page or draft space, and then presented to the community to evaluate whether it's an improvement. That practice does have long-standing precedent. I recommend you continue working in a sub-page after reverting your changes. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What you are proposing does not work. These are old fault lines we are talking about, the junctures of dislocation of perspectives, that have not filled up in the 70 years since India's independence.  The FA India was written in such fashion, in the public square as it were, in sight, and in the sights, of everyone.  Indeed that openness was a prerequisite.    I would know.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am proposing are two things. Take your pick: (1) Revert back to when the lead was more representative of the body (or use the "Overview" section in there now as the lead) and make incremental improvements to both, or (2) Work on an improved version in your own space to propose to the community.
 * Either of those practices have long-standing precedent. What you are doing does not; it is disruptive to the stability of the article, as you have observed yourself. Given the instability in the article now, partly caused by your own edits, reverts, and self-reverts, option 2 seems to be the best way forward. You're doing good work; you just need a stable place to do it in. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not for you to offer me anything. Please revert the article back to before I began to edit it. Here is the state it was in, before I was requested by others to edit, before my presence was welcomed by some admins, its lead irredeemably representative of main body content.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My intention all along was to work only on the lead in order for others to rewrite the main body. It is now there in the record, in one place; this I had forgotten.  The fact that the lead currently represents content that is UNDUE, whose implicit bias is very likely unknown to the editors of the moment who have appeared to edit it, citing Wikipedia's platitudes of "anyone can it," is irrelevant to me.  Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

While I'm at it, let me also commend the editors of knowledge and courage such as, ,  who attempted to keep the content unbiased, at the risk, and in one instance at the expense, of getting outed, and especially  who at considerable risk to life and limb went to the neighborhoods (about which others are now propounding theories of composition so conveniently) to take the excellent pictures. Thank you all. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead looks great.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your cooperation, contributions and appreciation of my work. It was a great Experience.Banswalhemant (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Consulting administrators
As shown by banners atop this talk page, the corresponding article is: As evidenced by today's additional sanction, administrators are playing an expanding role. I therefore believe it may be helpful to link to each engaged admin to facilitate consultation regarding the increasingly complicated process of editing 2020 Delhi riots. This is not an exhaustive list of admins who have participated here, merely those whose user names I recognize as being admins.
 * subject to discretionary sanctions, and to restrictions applied by administrators
 * controversial and content may be in dispute.

Administrator ' posted today at the talk page of fellow admin ': Since you have been heavily involved in guiding the editors at the page. Pinging ' and ' too.

Administrator  has also edited the article and talk page (here and here.)

Administrator  has edited the talk page.

I trust we can rely on these six admins for guidance in the coming days and weeks as we strive to improve this contentious article about historically important events, and I thank them for making their expertise available. NedFausa (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure such a list is useful or desirable, any Admin can do a drive by and say "NIBBLE LEAVE ORIFICE ALONE!".Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure your gratuitous insult is useful or desirable. The six admins I listed have done more here than drive by and say "NIBBLE LEAVE ORIFICE ALONE!" NedFausa (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * My "edit" to the article was simply reverting vandalism. I've never added or changed the content of the article other than that. I haven't contributed to any content discussions on this page and don't intend to. I am here purely in my Admin role. Doug Weller  talk 18:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Errrr I was not referring to them, but any other admin that may go past and decide someone is being "well out of ordda!". Many admins patrol, and any one of them might fetch up.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

For completeness, I belatedly add administrator Drmies, who edited the article on 24 March 2020 and might likewise be available for consultation. NedFausa (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the shoutout. That was a pretty fucking solid edit, if I say so myself. Pity it got reverted; in the meantime, some variety of normal English has been reintroduced to the lead. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Gee, I feel so left out. :) But then my involvement here has been minor. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I suppose the mention is nice, but it's very hard to see this discussion as anything other than an attempt to disable administrators via an allegation of WP:INVOLVED before filing an arbitration enforcement request at . For the record, the only thing I did at was reformat an RfC to comply with WP:RFCST, and give neutral advice on how to participate in the RfC. —  Newslinger   talk   04:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

A new source for the Aftermath section
You might want to look at yesterday's NYTimes article by Vindu Goel and Jeffrey Gettleman. Best, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC) Updated  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! SerChevalerie (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Reversion
, you reverted my sourced sentences but don't you think you should at least give a reason? I hope you can add it back if you don't have a reason!&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can give you a reason, why is this significant?Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Those two peoples actions are significant and I believe that the police action needs to be mentioned!&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How are their actions significant?Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The former for "hatching a conspiracy to incite communal riots" in several parts of Delhi, the national capital during the riots and the latter for "instigating the riots".&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, was he the main conspirator, the sole conspirator? Again why is his arrested important?Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He was one of the conspirators. Why is his arrest unimportant?&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he was just one of many charged. So he is no more important than any of the others. This should not and cannot be a list of all those charged.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Jamia Millia Islamia and Jawaharlal Nehru University were epicentres for the anti-CAA protests and so we should mention the arrest of these people. I am not asking to list all those charged.&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do you think?&mdash;Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a WP:RS for "he was one of the conspirators". It is just a police claim. The JNU student, I suppose Sharjeel Imam, has no connection to the Delhi riots. I don't see what is to discuss. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

, hi, I reverted your edits using my rollback option, which is why I couldn't leave an edit summary. As mentioned above, the JNU student wasn't even connected to the riots (PLEASE read your source carefully), the sentence about "hatching a conspiracy to incite communal riots" felt like POV pushing, and then whatever was left was WP:RECENTISM. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Violation of Discretionary sanction on lead
is in clear violation of the discretionary sanctions placed on the lead by with edits  and. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the information is all clearly sourced and has even put in quotes from the source to support the content. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And they have now had a DS noticed placed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the vigilance. I see that has already reverted the undiscussed edit, which violated the moratorium, and informed the user of the DS. Any repetition will lead to blocks/page bans; hopefully, that won't be needed. Abecedare (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone deserves one chance.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Relief camps in "Aftermath" section
With a bit of help from, I propose to add the following text to the "Aftermath" section:

The above has used third-party international sources to maintain quality. Kindly offer your opinions or suggestions. (Pinging since you had originally reverted my changes and  since you suggested creating new sections with the proposed changes). Thank you. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose describing the Idgah relief camp in present tense. As I previously proposed, we should update its status to reflect that officials completely cleared the camp on March 25, 2020. NedFausa (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , noted and fixed. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Leaving it with "evicted" seems incomplete. Please mention that the government is providing rations and Rs. 3,000, and has asked them to find rental accommodation, even though not all victims seem to have received such aid. I also wonder if "victim" is preferable to "refugee". The latter would imply a degree of permanence to their situation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you help me with sources for the same? SerChevalerie (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is already in your reference [5]. No new sources are necessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , your help is always welcome, and you can help with the sources too. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

, noted and done as suggested. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * and, do you have any further suggestions? SerChevalerie (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing more from me. It looks good. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. I should probably add some general guidelines for expansion.  It may be good to have it in one place for future reference.  Please give me about an hour.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)