Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 11

Not a memorial
We do not have to list the names of victims, it serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I support this decision. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That being said, what is the alternative? "A Hindu man", "a Muslim man"? "A 25-year old man"? SerChevalerie (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * None we do not have to list every incident or every injury.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you point us to a reasonably well-written article about any riots, to better indicate what we should keep and what we should remove? We could begin rewriting the "Timeline" section of the riots after that, as per your proposal. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is not need to give any example, we just remove any names, unless they are notable in their own right.Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you may be WP:BOLD and begin then. Will follow suit. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change (relief camp) to the lead during moratorium
Reword to update status of camp. To verify that this is the same location, compare The New York Times photo caption ("A relief camp in New Mustafabad in northeastern Delhi") in currently cited story with The Hindu's report of "The Idgah relief camp in north-east Delhi's Mustafabad."

¶5 third-from-last sentence should be changed from
 * About 1,000 Muslims have sought shelter in a relief camp on the fringes of Delhi.

to
 * About 1,000 Muslims sought shelter in a relief camp on the fringes of Delhi until March 25, 2020, when officials completely cleared the camp to ensure the safety of riot victims during the novel coronavirus outbreak.

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) 16:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure the lede needs more words.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you support removing the existing sentence, entirely eliminating mention of the camp? That would reduce the lead by 15 words. NedFausa (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither is fine as it is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand. Thanks for your reply. But while I've got your ear, I'd like to ask about your stance more generally, meaning the lead overall and not just this particular proposed change. Do you believe the lead is now exactly the right size (704 words in five paragraphs) and any proposed change should strictly maintain the present count—not one word more, not one word less? Or do you think the lead is sacrosanct and not be changed at all? NedFausa (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I would rather we had a separate discussion on overall length. I dislike spaghetti junction threads.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven that the lede is currently fine as it is. What we need to work on now is to extract what we can and move it to the body of the article, thus shortening the lead in the process (however, I admit that this will take time, since there is a lot more content needed to be added and WP:RS needed to be found). , regarding the coronavirus threat, see the discussion at, where I have proposed to add it as per F&f's suggestion. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. However, I wonder if you'd please clarify your approach. You describe it here as extracting content from the lead and moving it to the body of the article, thus shortening the lead. Yet on 28 March 2020, when you created the "Aftermath" section by, as you explained in the edit summary, "taking only points from the lead," you merely copied and pasted into "Aftermath" where you performed slight paraphrasing, leaving the lead intact. Perhaps it's your hope that someday, in the distant sunny future, such content will actually be removed from the lead. Meanwhile we're left with needless, almost verbatim duplication. NedFausa (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand your confusion. If you refer to my draft of the Aftermath you will see that I have written a lot more than just what F&F covered in the lead, but added only the parts for which we had achieved consensus (i.e. the parts from the lead). WRT "needless, almost verbatim duplication", all I can say is that, simply put, I haven't begun "extracting" the content yet. I would like to request the help of you and other editors to do so. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The content you copied and pasted from the lead into "Aftermath" consists of scarcely more than 100 words. Why do you need help to delete it from the lead? NedFausa (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , to maintain the flow of the lead. I said we must "shorten" the lead. However, it currently has a basic flow that will have to be maintained even with the proposed "extraction". SerChevalerie (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Again, closing this since you have the technical ability to edit the article yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering what a "spaghetti junction thread" is, it is a figurative use of File:Spaghetti-Junction-Crop.jpg, a feature seen in some highways, in or near urban areas. Thank you   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change (violence abated) to the lead during moratorium
It's been a full month since rioting ended. It is time to reword the lead to reflect that violence did not temporarily abate but has in fact abated, and that exploitative marches are not ongoing. Also, Wikipedia's paraphrase of those doing the parading as Hindu leaders is defective. Our source, The New York Times, identifies them as Hindu politicians. Not all leaders are politicians. There are, for example, religious leaders who may not be politicians and who should therefore not be held accountable for this shameful parading.

¶5 first sentence should be changed from
 * Although the violence has abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, 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.

to
 * After the violence abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu politicians paraded alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims.

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) 18:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems OK.Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support the change. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

This was already discussed at Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 10. The source does not support "alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence" (also beware of WP:CLAIM) and and I agreed "paraded" was somewhat POV.

F&f proposed:

In light of 's comments above and my own preferences for simplifying the language I would say something like:

—DIYeditor (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I realize we're supposed to adhere to Indian English, but even so, I hesitate to endorse your use of "frame" in this context. In American English, that word carries an informal connotation: "to contrive or prearrange fraudulently or falsely, as in a scheme or contest." I'm uneasy about readers mistaking our meaning here. NedFausa (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * From the source "trying to upend the narrative and make Hindus seem like the victims". "Attempting to frame" is actually milder than that to my ear. We could say "portray" rather than frame maybe? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We could eliminate the "attempting to frame" and just make it "framing" or "portraying" which would be better keeping with WP:CLAIM. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't live with frame because of this connotation, which means trying to falsely prove someone is guilty of a crime. But we'll see what others say—although our editorial pool seems to have evaporated since the lead was locked down. NedFausa (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "portray" should be okay. SerChevalerie (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought so. Can editors not use the new DS as an excuse to reopen recently closed discussions.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "Violence" does not "calm." Violence can end, reduce, subside, abate, but not "calm." It doesn't matter that a handful of social scientists with no clue about English usage might have used it after 1980. The intransitive verb "calm," means to become calm, to subside or abate from agitation.  "Violence" is agitation; it cannot subside from itself. So, again, you can say, "The sea has calmed," "wind has calmed," "the situation has calmed," "the weather has calmed," "the crowd has calmed,"  but NOT "the violence has calmed."  That would be like saying "the agitation has calmed," i.e. the "agitation has subsided from agitation," the "churning has calmed," "the convulsion has calmed."  I haven't checked, but I will eat my shoe if in any context, "violence had calmed," is more commonly used than "violence had ended," "violence had abated," or "violence had subsided."  This is incredible.  You guys are just going on and on and on, nipping at the heels of legitimate edits, unravelling the hems of well-woven words, for a purpose you are unable to define clearly. Numerous admins have told you to concentrate on the main body.  But you fiddle with everything but the main body.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I strongly oppose this violence inflicted on words. There is no consensus here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The New York Times text 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."  It says "continue to"  (present simple).  A month later it will be "continued to."  The NYTimes text is literary non-fiction, not technical non-fiction. It uses words figuratively and metaphorically. I have paraphrased it.  If it is too long, you can break it up: "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; they attempted to reshape the accounting of events, and also to inflame hostility towards Muslims."  Ask me, I can give you dozens of alternatives.  But please don't mangle the language or the implied meaning.  You accuse me of being aggressive, but what are the options here.  You accuse me of OWN, but you have nothing to offer. Dumbing down the language is not a WP guideline.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here you go: "violence had calmed" (without "down" after calm): sum total of 6 book returns. The only one legitimate is "the burst of violence had calmed" (1957).  On the other hand: "violence had abated" (1,500 book returns)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't have a cow. I originally wanted to say "the violence had ended" or "the violence had subsided" to try to rein in your flowery (or shall we say fragrant) language but I was working on matching the nuance of the original sentence. On one hand you argue that "thickly settled" is preferable because it's Anglo-Saxon in origin and preferable to "densely populated" which is much more common, then you come back with an argument to popularity. Also it takes considerable hubris even for you to argue about mistakes in tense when you forcefully restored the wrong tense in the disputed sentence because you were too  to look at the edit history and see what I was working on doing, which was eliminating the false present perfect tense you had inserted and replacing it with past perfect.
 * I think the problem here is that while competent you consider yourself a consummate wordsmith while churning out lines that are often stilted. For example if "encountered apprehended threats" is "well-woven" (I laugh) and makes more sense than "countered perceived threats" to any English speaker at all in the world other than you I will eat my underwear - or your shoes. Nobody is nipping at your heels, no need to give yourself a hernia over it, a simple rejection of the wording or counterproposal would do.
 * I believe the correct google books search for "violence had calmed" is this which has 190 results, yours excludes any result with the word "down". Let's take a look. Violence had abated - 1490 results. Violence had ended - 3050. Violence had subsided - 3810. So by your argument it looks like we are going with "violence had subsided". Densely populated - 3,280,000 results. Thickly settled - 446,000. Indeed, I think we are getting somewhere. So it's decided "violence had subsided in the densely-populated", please don't throw any more fits over it. You make a good point, for Wikipedia let us always use the most idiomatic turn of phrase.
 * As to the remainder, we start with 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. and you come up with 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. which is not what the source said. You falsely attribute that they were alleged victims of Muslim violence when they were factual casualties, insert what you now admit was the POV term "parading", and falsely attribute intent to inflame hostility toward Muslims. However we were able to work together to get to 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 which still has flaws. These were "politicians" not the more broad "leaders" you use. And is it more important to convey that they were trying to change the accounting of events, or that specifically they were trying to portray Hindus as the victims - the source says both and I think it is a little redundant to include both. Again it takes some considerable audacity and hubris on your part to accuse other to be the ones of mangling the meaning in paraphrases when you have already admitted you did so and backtracked on your wording.
 * Contrary to your style, having fewer, more readily-understood words is preferable here. So I think we are at:
 * —DIYeditor (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC) edited 03:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I support that sentence. It's concise yet conveys the essential information. NedFausa (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We could add something like " undermining the predominant narrative by portraying" but I think my version distills it down well enough. Less is more in a lead of this length. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first idea. You need to work on the body of the article before changing the lead section. Also, DIYeditor comment on the content not the editor. Your personal attacks are not welcomed here.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for a change. End of story.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd, 4 editors (5 if SharabSalam is one) have supported a change and even you yourself have supported a change as I outlined above. I have no idea what your game is here. Consensus is strongly in favor of some change at this point. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd, 4 editors (5 if SharabSalam is one) have supported a change and even you yourself have supported a change as I outlined above. I have no idea what your game is here. Consensus is strongly in favor of some change at this point. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

4 to 2 is not consensus.
 * Thank you for removing "violence had calmed," which, as I had pointed out earlier, is devoid of meaning. It had nothing to do with popularity. Thank you also for adopting an alternative I offered, "subsided." However, I still prefer "abate."
 * There are a number of errors in your text. "After the violence had subsided in the densely-populated Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu politicians exhibited Hindu casualties, portraying Hindus as the victims, which inflamed hostility toward Muslims."
 * The NYTimes wording is "continue to lead." That means (from the perspective of the time at which it was written): "they have been leading"  (i.e. they were and they still are).  In reported speech, it will be "continued to lead."  So, your text will need to have "continued to exhibit."  (They were doing it earlier, and continued to do so.) Otherwise, it will include the meaning, "politician began to exhibit."
 * Again: all politicians are leaders; all leaders are not politicians. There is nothing wrong with using leaders, especially in the context of Indian religious politics.
 * The NY Times adverbials trailing the sentences are in the form of participial phrases. They are written in the present continuous, "trying to upend the narrative and make Hindus seem like the victims." Then there is a relative clause, "which is stoking more anti-Muslim hatred."  It qualifies the entire participial phrase.  However, your relative clause, "which inflamed hostility toward Muslims" has two issues: (a) it leaves out the possibility that the hostility also continued to be inflamed, that it was not a one-time (and one-off) affair, (b) it applies to the portrayal, not directly to the exhibition of casualties. There are other issues: "neighborhood" is American; the Indian word is "colony."  So, how about: "'After the riots had abated in the thickly settled Hindu Muslim colonies of North East Delhi, some Hindu leaders continued to bring notice to Hindus injured in the riots. They tried to unduly alter the reckoning of events and inflame hostility towards Muslims.'"     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose this latest distortion. "...all leaders are not politicians," he declares in a bullet point. Then he insists on contradicting our source, The New York Times, by paraphrasing politicians as leaders. It's nonsensical, illogical, and unsupported by WP:RS. Why the aversion to calling them politicians? I believe this is meant to insinuate that they may have been religious leaders, not politicians, which would befit an anti-Hindu POV. NedFausa (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll change to "politicians," (a closer paraphrasing, but your preference). How about: "'After the riots had abated in the thickly settled Hindu Muslim colonies of North East Delhi, some Hindu politicians continued to bring notice to Hindus injured in the riots. They kept trying to unduly alter how the riots had unfolded and to inflame hostility towards Muslims.'"
 * PS The NYT phrasing at the time of writing (March 12) is: "'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."}}
 * Note the congruences: "continue to" = "continued to;" "trotting out" = "bring notice to;" "trying to upend" = "trying to unduly alter; "is stoking" = "(trying to) inflame".  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

"...a closer paraphrasing, but your preference"—what are you trying to pull here? Politicians is not a paraphrase. Leaders is a paraphrase. Your odor of bad faith is becoming unmistakable. NedFausa (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "close paraphrase" means "copying or bordering on copying." But, regardless, I have changed to "politicians." As for readability, please go to: Analyze My Writing.  Once there paste my text.  Click on the Readability button and then on Analyze Text.  My text has average grade level 12.5 (i.e. senior High School or freshman college).  Now do the same for DIYeditor's text.  The average grade level is 22.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your obstructionism in this thread is just the latest example of WP:DISRUPT, for which I guess you now have a license thanks to your admin supporters. It stinks. NedFausa (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * A couple of reminders:
 * Please dial down the rhetoric before sanctions become necessary.
 * Consider the marginal gains of the time and effort being devoted to fine-tuning the phrasing and word-choices of individual sentences in the lede, especially when the body of the article has such glaring organization, content, language, grammar and MOS issues. (To pick at random, just look at the first para of the Supreme Court Hearing section: Bhim Army chief Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, along with former Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah and social activist Syed Bahadur Abbas Naqvi, filed an appeal in the Supreme Court seeking direction to the police to file reports over cases of violence that occurred since the night of 23 February. His petition also accused Mishra of "inciting and orchestrating the riots". The plea was filed through Advocate Mehmood Pracha, in an intervention in a matter relating to removal of protesters from the public road in Shaheen Bagh and is scheduled for hearing on 26 February.)
 * Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I support Ned Fausa's rewording (changing to past tense). I don't support any further tweaking, on the grounds of diminishing returns. Rome is not burning yet, but it is bad enough. Not a time for fiddling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I too support only the change in tense as described by K3 above. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about: "After the violence abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu politicians paraded alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims?"
 * If so, I am delighted to support it too. So now we have NedFausa, Slatersteven, SerChevelerie, Kautilya3, SharabSalam and I supporting it, and DIYeditor opposing.  6 to 1 is unanimous and requires a speedy close.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Less than 24 hours after he gave us:
 * Obviously, I strongly oppose this violence inflicted on words. There is no consensus here.
 * the same editor gives us:
 * 6 to 1 is unanimous and requires a speedy close.
 * 6 to 1 is not unanimous; claiming so = violence inflicted on words. NedFausa (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, 's position is unclear. "I agree with the first idea," he states vaguely but then adds: "You need to work on the body of the article before changing the lead section." So which is it—change the lead or not? NedFausa (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I believe consensus has been achieved to simply change the tense (as proposed by NedFausa). As for the further simplification of language (proposed by DIYeditor), we are still in discussion, and it would be better to start a new thread for the same. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing this as ❌. There should be a consensus before using .  I have also unarchived this sinnce there still seems to be ongoing discussion.  If there are active watchers of a page, it would be better if you close requests which do not have consensus yourselves, and if there is a non-controversial part, then take care of that yourselves too.  Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And, you are already able to edit the page. You should not be opening edit requests for pages you already have the technical ability to edit unless it's also a conflict-of-interest issue (in which case there's a separate template for that).  Getting consensus for a change first is great, but please just do so in a normal thread, not with an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Before lecturing me, you really ought to have familiarized yourself with what's been going on here. On 30 March 2020:
 * 15:43 Administrator posted an admin-note 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.
 * 16:00 Admin Abecedare posted a talkpage notice about her additional discretionary sanction as a banner.
 * 16:09 Admin Abecedare posted an edit-notice about the additional discretionary sanction as a banner that appears prominently whenever an editor clicks Edit Source at the article space.
 * 16:26 Using the Edit semi-protected template, I posted a Proposed change (ancestral villages) to the lead during moratorium at this talk page.
 * 17:05 Admin Abecedare thanked me for complying with the moratorium and setting a good example for how a change can be proposed!
 * It seems to me that your instructions are in conflict with hers. NedFausa (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in any of the discretionary sanctions notices and warnings does it say anything about using . You can propose changes and gain consensus without using this template, so there's no conflict between me and Abcdedare. The template should only be used by editors who are unable to edit a page for technical reasons, such as wanting to edit a semi-protected page while not being autoconfirmed.  Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, the issue is moot. Administrator 's discretionary sanction has had the effect of locking the lead in place. As long as the lead's creator is minding the store, there will be no changes until the moratorium expires. Accordingly, I shall offer no new proposals. NedFausa (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Deacon for pointing out the issue with use of the template in the current circumstances. Arguably, I should have caught the error earlier and provided better guidance to the involved editors. In any case, going forward we can avoid recurrence of this issue. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you move your suggestions on simplification of the language to a new section so that we may discuss only the changes in tense here and achieve a consensus. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Police join rioters
A report published in The Print claims that police personnel shakes the hand with rioters and support rioters to spread the violence against a community in Chandbagh area. Local residents saw police is also targeting targeting peoples. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, if you see the section , it is mentioned:
 * Victims of the riot reported that the police did not respond promptly when called, claiming that the officers were busy. Other reports also suggested that the police encouraged rioters and physically attacked residents of riot-affected areas, going on to shoot people randomly. The police, however, denied these assertions.
 * Is there any specific text that you feel should be added to this section? SerChevalerie (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi SerChevalerie, that is sufficient I think. Meanwhile its looking good and no further addition on this from my end. thank you! Rashid Jorvee (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Police threats in "Aftermath" section
Proposed text to be added:

Kindly offer your opinions or suggestions. (Specifically pinging since you had originally reverted my changes and  since you suggested creating new sections with the proposed changes). Thank you. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone can say anything, but its attributed so I see no issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your courtesy, but please don't ping me each time you create a new section with proposed changes. NedFausa (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , noted, sorry. Any comments on this addition? SerChevalerie (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, I no longer believe it's possible to change 2020 Delhi riots through a process of proposal and consensus. NedFausa (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you've lost hope, but I would encourage you to not be disheartened. After all, the other editors are just trying to improve the article, like you are. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Other editors! In the past seven days, there have been 38 edits to 2020 Delhi riots. You made 21 of them (55%). How many of yours were the result of proposal and consensus? Of my own six edits, none involved proposal and consensus. Nor did an edit by a bot and one each by two administrators. There were only six other contributors, four of whom made just one edit apiece. Let's stop kidding ourselves. Discretionary sanctions have intentionally discouraged would-be editors to the point of virtual lockdown. Proposal and consensus are a waste of time and effort. NedFausa (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Abecedare had said, "Therefore, as a discretionary sanction, I am imposing a moratorium on making any further unilateral edits to the lede till April 15 2020." as you are not editing the lead, you don't really need consensus. If it is either a foreign source listed in Stage 1 (see above) or an Indian source in Stage 2, you should go ahead and make your edit. The text will expand, with all sorts of competing but reliable edits. Eventually, after all the sections have been reworked in such fashion, we will need to whittle the main body down in a DUE manner to a reasonable size, and then rewrite the lead. There is nothing stopping you as far as I am concerned. After you are finished reworking a section, you may ping the other editors as a courtesy; but, you certainly don't need to do this for every sentence. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  20:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS There is no hurry. It will take six months, and maybe more, for the dust (journalistic, critical, scholarly) to settle, and for the article to be ready, for, say, something like a good article candidate. The lead is more or less in place.  Anyone who wants to can expand the main body.  Ask me if you need specific blurbs from the various newspapers listed above that require a subscription.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, thank you for your inputs. However, the reason why I am requesting for consensus is because of WP:BRD. I was bold and had added this exact same content, reverted my edits, and when I previously discussed this, we sadly did not achieve consensus, being informed that "you can add the rest when (and if) it is agreed you can add it". SerChevalerie (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahh that id when. If you recall it was due to the fact its not about the aftermath.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's a bit of unfair of you to say, considering how only the first couple of lines were debatably irrelevant. Anyway, I'm glad that we have now achieved some consensus on the same. Looking forward to more such discussions (and contributions from editors like you!). SerChevalerie (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removal of a sentence from the lead
I propose removal of a sentence from the third para of the lead. Following is the sentence:

"When in response to Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men began to gather, violence erupted."

This sentence is unsourced and there is no reliable source present in the adjacent sentences to confirm the authenticity of this statement that Hindu men began to gather in response to Kapil Mishra's ultimatum and as a result, violent erupted. In fact, in his ultimatum dt 23rd February 2020, Mishra had said that he and his men are retreating and will remain silent until Trump leaves the country. Trump left India on 25th February but riots began on 23rd February itself. -Yoonadue (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I applaud for raising this issue here, where it belongs, after yesterday falsely calling it spam and then edit warring over its restoration. Questioning this sentence is important because it directly ascribes the deadly violence to an individual, Kapil Mishra, whom we name. The nearest following inline citation is to a perennially reliable source, The New York Times, which does not name Kapil Mishra. It does, however, mention "members of Mr. Modi's party who have been widely accused of instigating the recent violence in Delhi." (For the record,  Kapil Mishra and Prime Minister Narendra Modi both belong to the Bharatiya Janata Party.) Please note the hyperlink within the quoted passage; it redirects to an earlier story in The New York Times that does name Kapil Mishra. Following his "fiery speech" of February 23, The Times reports: "Within hours, the worst Hindu-Muslim violence in India in years was exploding." The Times does not expressly say that Hindu men gathered in response to Mishra's ultimatum or that violence erupted because of his fiery speech. The Times does, though, strongly insinuate such causation. As Wikipedians adherent to WP:Libel, we must ask ourselves if this is good enough to, in effect, indict Kapil Mishra for inciting murderous rioting. I think not. The disputed sentence should be promptly rewritten or removed. NedFausa (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In response to the above note and a message on my talkpage: Libel seems to be a stretch given the cited article saying, When the violence started on Feb. 23 — as Hindu men gathered to forcibly eject a peaceful Muslim protest near their neighborhood, especially when that is read in context of the earlier NYT article that Ned pointed out, which is devoted to analyzing Mishra role as the alleged instigator. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, I have for now modified the language in the sentence to indicate only a temporal connection between the speech and the violence, rather than a causal one. Editors are welcome/encouraged to discuss and decide, what exact phrasing is preferable and what sources should be cited; my ad hoc word-choice need not be given any extra weight, although please leave it in place till an alternative gains consensus. Abecedare (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Abecedare,

The new version of the sentence as edited by you is as follows:

'''After Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men began to gather and violence erupted. ''' This is a very slight change in the original sentence and hence it doesn't settle the issue. What you have presented from a source in support of the sentence is this :

When the violence started on Feb. 23 — as Hindu men gathered to forcibly eject a peaceful Muslim protest near their neighborhood

I am sorry but this source doesn't imply that after Mishra's ultimatum, Hindu men began to gather and violence erupted. If we go by local sources, Hindu men had gathered before the said ultimatum and minor stone pelting might have happened from both the sides. But after police intervention and Mishra's ultimatum (related to Trump's visit), Hindus had retreated. This indicates that the lethal violence was actually initiated by the Muslim rioters. However, we don't have sources to support this statement as well. Thats why I have proposed to remove the said sentence rather than making a change to it. -Yoonadue (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please give me some time. I will post here later today and give you a summary of what of the foreign sources say (in Stage 1) and the notable Indian ones do (in Stage 2).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delayed response but, as I indicated above, the issue is best discussed with other involved editors (who I am glad to see are already engaged) and I, as an admin, don't get to decide the content by diktat. A couple of general tips though:
 * If you refer to local or other sources, specify and (ideally) link to them, so that others can examine the quality of sources and what exactly they say.
 * If "we don't have sources to support X statement", don't bring X statement into the discussion. That just detracts from the task of analyzing and summarizing what the best sources on a topic say, which is what wikipedians do.
 * Abecedare (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's Foreign newspapers and other media in India on the event(s) leading to the riot

 * As promised I have collected all the reliable foreign sources. Here they are.  There are a lot of them; they will need to be summarized with prudence and common sense.  Good luck.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * North America


 * The New York Times. (Subscrip. Req.) Jeffrey Gettleman (South Asia bureau chief); Maria Abi-Habib; Kai Shultz; Hari Kumar, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * New Delhi Streets Turn Into Battleground, Hindus vs. Muslims" February 25, Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * Quote: "The next day, Kapil Mishra, a local leader from Mr. Modi’s political party, showed up. He threatened to mobilize a mob to clear out the protesters. He said he did not want to create trouble while Mr. Trump was visiting, but he warned the police that as soon as Mr. Trump left India on Tuesday night, his followers would clear the streets if the police did not. Tensions shot up. As Sunday evening approached, gangs of Hindu men and Muslim men began throwing rocks at each other.
 * As New Delhi Violence Rages for 3rd Day, Modi Urges Calm February 26, Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * Quote:"Much of the blame for the violence is falling on Kapil Mishra, a local politician from Mr. Modi’s political party. On Sunday, Mr. Mishra threatened to mobilize a mob to clear out protesters who have been demonstrating against a new citizenship law, which is widely seen as discriminating against Muslims. Mr. Mishra said he did not want to create trouble during Mr. Trump’s two-day trip. But Mr. Mishra warned the police that as soon as Mr. Trump left India on Tuesday, his followers would take action against the protesters, who were mostly Muslim women, if the police did not. As Sunday evening approached, gangs of Hindu and Muslim men began throwing rocks at each other. This quickly degenerated into wider violence."
 * The Roots of the Delhi Riots: A Fiery Speech and an Ultimatum, Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * Quote: "To many in the eastern Delhi neighborhood where a convulsion of religious violence erupted this week, it all began with one man. Kapil Mishra, a local politician with India’s leading Hindu nationalist party, had just lost an election. Acquaintances in the area, which now feels like a war zone, said he had been looking for a way to bounce back. ... On Sunday, he appeared at a rally against a group of protesters (most of them women) who were objecting to a new citizenship law widely seen as discriminatory toward Muslims. There he vented his anger in a fiery speech in which he issued an ultimatum to the police: either clear out the demonstrators, who were blocking a main road, or he and his followers would do it themselves. Within hours, the worst Hindu-Muslim violence in India in years was exploding. Gangs of Hindus and Muslims fought each other with swords and bats, shops burst into flames, chunks of bricks sailed through the air, and mobs rained blows on cornered men."
 * In India, Modi’s Policies Have Lit a Fuse, March 1, By Jeffrey Gettleman and Maria Abi-Habib
 * Quote: "On Feb. 23, a member of Mr. Modi’s party lit the spark. That afternoon, Kapil Mishra, a B.J.P. politician who had just lost a state Assembly election and seemed to be trying to rejuvenate his career, threatened to clear out a group of peaceful Muslim protesters, mostly women, who had been blocking a road. Hindus and Muslims then started throwing rocks at each other, and the unruly crowd grew."


 * The Washington Post. (Subscrip. Req.) Joana Slater (India bureau chief), Neha Masih, Tania Dutta
 * "Worst communal violence in Delhi in decades leaves 17 dead as Trump visits India," February 25, by Slater, Masih, and Dutta
 * Quote:"The trigger for the clashes came when Kapil Mishra, a local leader of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, on Sunday threatened to clear a sit-in mounted by protesters, nearly all Muslim women, against the citizenship law. He said he would take no action while Trump was visiting but that if police did not move the protesters soon, he would take matters into his own hands. What happened next remains unclear and chaotic, but groups of Hindus and Muslims hurled stones at one another Monday. Adil Khan, 29, lives in the neighborhood of Kardampuri and said Muslims gathered in the street to defend themselves after a message went out that a mob was massing to attack. By the next morning, the mob was closer."
 * "Death toll passes 30 in Delhi violence as Modi issues plea for calm," February 26, Slater, Masih.
 * Quote:"Meanwhile, members of Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party have vilified the protesters, calling them traitors who deserve to be shot and linking them with India’s rival Pakistan. One such leader, Kapil Mishra, helped trigger this week’s violence: He threatened to clear a sit-in conducted by Muslim women, sparking a clash between supporters and opponents of the citizenship law."


 * The Wall Street Journal Bill Spindle (South Asia bureau chief); Vibhuti Agarwal (Commodities Reporter); Krishna Pokharel (Reporter)
 * "India’s Ruling Party, Government Slammed Over Delhi Violence," (subscription required; Pokharel, Agarwal, Spindle, February 26)
 * "India Begins Probe of Clashes That Left 38 Dead," (subscription required; Agarwal, Spindle, February 27)
 * "The violence began on Sunday after a local BJP politician with a history of sectarian provocations organized a demonstration in support of the citizenship law. Other groups critical of the law had been peacefully protesting against it in the area almost since its passage in December, but recently they were blocking a neighborhood thoroughfare. The BJP politician, Kapil Mishra, had said he would rally his supporters to clear the street if police didn’t before the end of Mr. Trump’s visit Tuesday evening. By Monday, however, the confrontational demonstrations had devolved into rioting through a swath of the capital city’s northeastern periphery."


 * Associated Press (Subscrip. Not Req.)
 * Correspondents: Emily Schmall (South Asia correspondent) Sheikh Saaliq, Ashok Sharma


 * Toronto Star
 * Toronto Star ("Scars of violence haunt India’s capital after deadly riots," February 27, by Emily Schmall and Sheikh Saaliq
 * Quote: "Kapil Mishra, a local leader of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party who lost his Delhi state assembly seat in recent elections, held his own rally, urging police to clear out the protesters. “They want Delhi to burn,” Mishra said with a police official standing beside him. “I am saying this on behalf of the crowd that we will be peaceful until Trump is here. Once he leaves, we won’t even listen to you if the roads aren’t cleared of demonstrators,” he said, referring to the police. By Friday, the death toll from the violence that followed, between Hindus and Muslims who had lived side by side for centuries but attacked each other with guns and swords, metal rods and axes, had risen to 38."


 * National Public Radio, (Subscrip. Not Req.) Lauren Frayer, India correspondent, based in Mumbai.
 * As President Trump Left India's Capital, Hindu-Muslim Riots Flared, February 26, Lauren Frayer, audio with transcript, heard on Morning Edition
 * Quote: "FRAYER: "We'll hold back only until Trump departs," Kapil Mishra, local leader of Modi's party, told his supporters Sunday. He said police had better evict protesters or else his loyalists would do it themselves, he said. And that appears to be what happened Tuesday night. Hindu mobs appear to have targeted Muslims primarily, not protesters."
 * In New Delhi, Days Of Deadly Violence And Riots, February 26, by Laurel Wamsley and Lauren Frayer,
 * Quote: "Clashes erupted Sunday after a local official from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist party vowed to clear anti-government protesters from the city. The local politician, Kapil Mishra, led a rally in Jaffrabad and tweeted that Delhi police had three days to clear the protest sites. Groups were soon throwing rocks and attacking one another. Mishra and other Bharatiya Janata Party leaders have been accused of inciting violence through their speeches."
 * Delhi Riots Aftermath: 'How Do You Explain Such Violence?', March 7, by Lauren Frayer.
 * Quote: "We'll hold back only until Trump departs," Kapil Mishra, a local BJP leader, told his supporters on Feb. 23. And that's what appears to have happened. On the night of Feb. 25, violence erupted on a much larger scale, as Trump departed. Mobs torched Muslim homes, chanting "Jai Shri Ram" — praise Lord Ram, one of the Hindu gods. They appear to have targeted Muslims indiscriminately, rather than targeting protesters."


 * CBS (Columbia Broadcasting System, United States), correspondent: Arshad Zagar
 * New Delhi riots leave 38 dead as India balks at U.S. reaction to the religious violence, February 27, by Arshad R. Zagar
 * Quote: "The Delhi judge who accused the police of failing to cite politicians for hate speech was transferred to a different court later the same night. The government called his transfer "routine," and said it had been arranged previously. The new judge heard the case on Thursday and gave the government one month to tell the court what action it has taken against the politicians for their alleged hate speech. An address by a Hindu leader of Prime Minister Modi's own party sparked the complaints of hate speech. Kapil Mishra had told a crowd, in front of a senior police officer, that he had appealed to the police to clear the anti-citizenship law protest sites. "I want to tell them (police) that we will stay silent until Trump's departure, but after that we will not even listen to you," Mishra said.


 * United Kingdom and Ireland


 * The Times (Subscrip. Req.) Hugh Tomlinson, South Asia correspondent, based in Delhi; Saurabh Sharma, Delhi
 * "Hindu mobs threaten to purge Delhi of Muslims," February 27, Hugh Tomlinson
 * "Three days of riots have turned mixed neighbourhoods into war zones, with armed Hindu gangs roaming the streets, looting and burning Muslim shops and homes. The violence is the culmination of protests that broke out in December against a citizenship law enacted by the Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi. Clashes that erupted when Hindu gangs attacked a Muslim anti-government demonstration on Monday swept through neighbourhoods in the northeast of the capital yesterday, gathering in ferocity. The death toll from the worst violence seen in the Indian capital for decades climbed to 34 today with more than 200 injured."
 * "Narendra Modi can turn India’s crisis to his advantage," February 28, Philip Collins
 * Quote: "The prime minister should also distance himself from the rabble-rousing elements of his own party, such as Kapil Mishra, a local BJP politician who has done much to inflame Hindu sentiment in Delhi. It is surely right that, in a democracy, the death of 35 people in the capital should provoke the resignation of an accountable minister. Mr Modi ought to replace his home minister, Amit Shah, who last year described Bangladeshi immigrants as “termites”.


 * Guardian, Hannah Ellis-Peterson, Delhi correspondent.
 * Delhi rocked by deadly protests during Donald Trump's India visit, February 25, Hannah Ellis-Peterson
 * Quote: "The unrest in the capital began on Sunday in north-east Delhi, when a Kapil Mishra, a local leader from Modi’s BJP party, threatened to violently remove a group of Muslim protesters who had been peacefully blocking a local road in protest against a controversial new citizenship amendment act (CAA), which many believe discriminates against Muslims. Mishra’s incendiary rhetoric against the Muslims riled up a Hindu mob, and Hindus and Muslims began clashing in the streets, throwing stones and setting alight to local businesses. The communal violence further escalated as rumours that Hindu icons had been demolished by local Muslims and a mob of Hindu rioters were pictured violently beating a Muslim man with sticks and baseball bats as he lay bloodied in the street, crying for help. A policeman was killed when he was hit in the head by a flying rock, and multiple journalists were hospitalised as they were attacked by mobs."
 * The Guardian view on Delhi’s violence: Modi stoked this fire, February 26, Editorial Board of the Guardian
 * Quote: "The immediate causes of events are the fallout from Narendra Modi’s unjust Citizenship (Amendment) Act, the dangerous rhetoric employed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata party in Delhi’s city elections this month, and the mob incitement by BJP leaders like Kapil Mishra, to violently remove a group of Muslims who were blocking a road in the capital’s north-west to protest against the legislation. Scuffles quickly escalated. But it is clear that many defenceless Muslims were the primary targets and victims. Witnesses described the police simply standing by, joining crowds chanting nationalist slogans, or firing indiscriminately. BJP leaders were reportedly recorded encouraging crowds to chant “shoot the traitors” and accusing the peaceful protestors of being “rapists and murderers”. This is awful but unsurprising."
 * Inside Delhi: beaten, lynched and burnt alive, March 1, Hannah Ellis-Peterson
 * Quote: "The spark for the latest violence was provided by Kapil Mishra, a BJP leader who had just lost his seat in those elections, when he incited a Hindu mob to violently remove a group of Muslims who were blocking a road in north-east Delhi in protest against the CAA. Addressing the peaceful protest, Mishra issued an inflammatory ultimatum: “If the roads are not cleared … we will be forced to hit the streets.” Stone pelting began between Muslims and Hindus, which quickly descended into the violence that spread through the city."
 * Delhi's Muslims despair of justice after police implicated in riots, March 16, Hannah Ellis-Petersen and Shaikh Azizur Rahman
 * Quote: "The catalyst for the riots is widely acknowledged to have been a comment by Kapil Mishra, a BJP leader, who on 23 February issued a public ultimatum declaring that if the police did not clear the streets of a protest against a new citizenship law seen as anti-Muslim, his supporters would be “forced to hit the streets”. Ravinder, a 17-year-old who works in his father’s property business and is part of India’s lower-caste Gujjar community, said he and other young Hindu men had heard Mishra’s call to action against the Muslim community, and began to mobilise on the morning of 24 February without any fear of police reprisal. “There was a clear instruction of catch-and-kill action against any Muslim we could spot,” said Ravinder. “I was in a group of around 15 boys. Many senior brothers said to us that police would not take any action against any member of our community and we could attack the people on the other side [Muslims] the way we liked.” Ravinder described how he and a group of seven men had captured a Muslim rickshaw driver in his 40s, beaten him with wooden sticks and metal rods until he appeared dead, and then threw him in an open drain while police stood by. He also said the police had instructed them to destroy the CCTV cameras as they marauded through the streets."


 * Independent, (Subscrip. Req.) Adam Withnall, Asia editor based in Delhi.
 * "Delhi riots: Violence that killed 53 in Indian capital ‘was anti-Muslim pogrom’, says top expert," March 7, by Adam Withnall
 * Quote: "Amid heightened tensions, the situation appears to have boiled over on Sunday after a prominent BJP politician, Kapil Mishra, called on Hindu nationalists to take to the streets and “give an answer” to sit-in protesters demonstrating against Mr Modi’s new citizenship laws."


 * Financial Times, (Subscrip. Req.) Amy Kazmin South Asia Bureau Chief, based in Delhi; Stephanie Findlay, South Asia correspondent.
 * "India riots: ‘We were attacked because we are Muslim’," February 28, by Stephanie Findlay and Amy Kazmin
 * Quote: "Tensions had surged on Sunday after Kapil Mishra, a politician from the ruling Bharatiya Janata party, gave an inflammatory speech demanding that police clear the streets of Muslim protesters and vowing that if they did not, citizens like him would do so once Mr Trump had left."
 * "Narendra Modi is taking India down a dangerous path," February 28, The Editorial Board of The Financial Times
 * Quote: "Trouble in the affected area flared on Sunday after Kapil Mishra, a hardline local BJP leader, threatened Muslims who were blocking a road in an otherwise peaceful protest against the citizenship law. Addressing a crowd of rightwing Hindus right next to the sit-in, he warned that if the protesters were not gone by the time Mr Trump's visit was over, they would take matters into their own hands. Shortly afterwards, witnesses said, groups of Hindus and Muslims began pelting each other with stones. By Monday, large areas were in the grip of a full-scale riot, with mobs of Hindu men, carrying firearms, petrol bombs and iron rods, marauding through the area's congested streets, attacking passers-by and setting fire to property they suspected of being Muslim-owned."


 * Economist (Subscrip. Req.) (does not have bylines by tradition, only the location of the reporter)
 * A tale of two neighbourhoods: Donald Trump and Narendra Modi hug as Delhi burns, February 27, 2020, Delhi
 * Quote: "The trigger for the riots appears to have been a rally by another local politician, who declared that if a sit-in by Muslim women protesting against the citizenship rules was not lifted by the time Mr Trump left India, his supporters would no longer remain peaceful. Soon after, mobs went on the rampage in Muslim neighbourhoods, often with police looking mutely on or, say many witnesses, aiding the attackers."
 * First the mob, then the law: Victims of rioting in India are bashed by the police and courts, too, March 12, Delhi
 * Quote: "During the riots in Delhi, it was only after the high court ordered police to help evacuate wounded people to hospital that the city’s 80,000-person police force began to intervene, after 48 hours of arson and murder. The same bench also demanded that the police register cases against members of the bjp for hate speech, which they had refused to do despite copious footage of politicians calling for protesters to be shot. Hours later the Supreme Court transferred one of the troublesome judges out of Delhi. The next day the high court postponed all hearings about hate speech to April. As the bodies were fished out of Delhi’s fetid canals, it became clear that some three-quarters of the victims had Muslim names. Most of the homes and businesses damaged in the riots belonged to Muslims. Yet the police seem to think that Muslims orchestrated it all."


 * The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), (Subscrip. Not Req.) Soutik Biswas, India correspondent
 * Why Delhi violence has echoes of the Gujarat riots, February 26, Soutik Biswas
 * Quote: "It was only a matter of time before Delhi's fragile stability would be shaken. On Sunday a BJP leader issued a threat, telling the Delhi police they had three days to clear the sites where people had been protesting against the citizenship law and warned of consequences if they failed to do so. The first reports of clashes emerged later that day. The ethnic violence that followed was a tragedy foretold."


 * Europe


 * Le Monde, (Subscrip. Req.) Sophie Landrin, India correspondent
 * "Trump célèbre la tolérance indienne quand des heurts intercommunautaires embrasent New Delhi," ("Trump celebrates Indian tolerance when cross-community clashes set fire to New Delhi") 25 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
 * "Inde : New Delhi en proie à de violents conflits intercommunautaires" ("India: New Delhi plagued by violent inter-community conflicts"), 26 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
 * "A New Delhi, trois jours de terreur" ("In New Delhi, three days of terror"), 27 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
 * Quote: "Les violences ont-elles été minutieusement préparées et orchestrées en amont pour transformer cette contestation jusque-là pacifique en un confit intercommunautaire ? L’hypothèse est crédible. Tout a commencé le 22 février, lorsqu’un leader local du BJP, Kapil Mishra, a rassemblé ses partisans dans le nord de New Delhi pour déloger des femmes qui venaient d’investir une route pour protester contre la loi sur la nationalité, à l’image des femmes de Shaheen Bagh, qui bloquent depuis le 15 décembre 2019 une route dans le sud de New Delhi. L’homme avait donné trois jours à la police pour évacuer les contestataires, le temps que Donald Trump achève sa visite en Inde, menaçant dans le cas contraire d’intervenir. Dimanche, alors que le président américain entamait des négociations commerciales avec Narendra Modi, les heurts éclataient." (Was the violence carefully planned and orchestrated beforehand to transform this hitherto peaceful protest into an inter-community conflict? The assumption is credible. It all started on February 22 when a local BJP leader, Kapil Mishra, gathered his supporters in northern New Delhi to dislodge women who had just taken a road to protest the nationality law, at the image of the women of Shaheen Bagh, who have blocked a road in south New Delhi since December 15, 2019. Man gave police three days to evacuate protesters, while Donald Trump completes visit to India,otherwise threatening to intervene. Sunday, when the American president started trade negotiations with Narendra Modi, clashes broke out.")
 * "Attaques contre les musulmans à New Delhi : « J’ai pensé que j’allais mourir »" ("Attacks on Muslims in New Delhi: 'I thought I was going to die' "), 04 mars 2020, Sophie Landrin


 * Le Figaro, (Subsrip. Req.) Mathilda Hautbois
 * "New Delhi : le déchaînement de violences contre les musulmans en photos," March 1, 2020, Mathilda Hautbois
 * Quote: "Kapil Mishra, un leader du parti Bharatiya Janata (BJP), la formation nationaliste du premier ministre indien Narendra Modi, est à l’origine de ces heurts. Il a incité des nationalistes hindous à s’opposer au blocage d’une route par des femmes musulmanes qui protestaient pacifiquement contre la loi controversée sur la citoyenneté. «Si les routes ne sont pas dégagées, nous serons obligés de descendre dans les rues», avait annoncé Mishra. La violence s’est rapidement répandue dans la ville. Des hindous ont demandé à voir les cartes d'identité d'hommes qu'ils arrêtaient dans la rue. Le Guardian rapporte que si un homme refusait, il était obligé de montrer s'il était circoncis ou non. ("Kapil Mishra, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata (BJP) party, the nationalist party of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is behind these clashes. He incited Hindu nationalists to oppose the blocking of a road by Muslim women who peacefully protested the controversial citizenship law. "If the roads are not cleared, we will have to take to the streets," said Mishra. Violence quickly spread in the city. Hindus asked to see the identity cards of men they were arresting on the street. The Guardian reports that if a man refused, he was forced to show whether he was circumcised or not."

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

What the local sources say

 * Clash erupts between pro & anti CAA groups in Jaffrabad area, The Economic Times, 23 February 2020.


 * Who failed Delhi?, India Today, 6 March 2020.


 * Jeevan Prakash Sharma, Delhi Riots 2020: Who Fanned The Flames of Hatred? Is Kapil Mishra Only To Blame?, Outlook, 9 March 2020.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What do non local sources say?Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The non-local sources were accurately summarised by . -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I would go with those, they are more neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Kautilya3

No one is denying that Kapil Mishra tweeted and gathered Hindu men; stone pelting too occured from both the sides. But when Police intervened, the stone pelting was stopped and he gave an ultimatum that they are going back until Trump leaves. Please re-read the sentence being discussed here. Its clear misrepresentation of sources as no source says that Hindu men gathered in response to his ultimatum. -Yoonadue (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you citing local sources? The principal author of the lead has already decreed that such sources may not be used in his lead. You're merely confusing the issue. This is unconstructive. NedFausa (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

All the facts are put in wrong way
This has been made Uneditable because the facts here are put in wrong way. CAA nowhere is Muslim opposite bill. Riots was not Hindu attacking Muslim. Nowhere AAP MLA Tahir Hussain mentioned. Add the lady who was arrested from JNU. All fake. Karuna0585 (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC) — Karuna0585 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * And none of your claims are backed up by reliable sources. Provide those, and your suggestions can be considered, but as you presented them, they're useless. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment
The article is totally fake it doesnt recognise the person tahir Hussain [BLP violation redacted Doug Weller  talk 11:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)]. Neither there is any report that suggest that killed persons was from Hindu and Muslim community. This article is totally fake... Badshah3956 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If you have suggestions for specific changes to the article that are supported with independent reliable sources, please offer them.  Please also understand that this is a very controversial subject and collaboration amongst people of differing viewpoints is required. 331dot (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the above section has a very similar comment by a different user. I think both accounts belong to the same person.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible, but it could be different people, as the controversial nature of this subject could be drawing people here. 331dot (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree we go wit what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets not start to discus users conduct here. And lets not make reports based on flimsy evidence.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Enforcement of our WP:BLP policy on this page
You simply cannot accuse living or recently deceased people of crimes for which they have not been convicted, and this includes starting riots. You can discuss reliable sources (not Opindia or Swarajya please) that discuss them, but that's the limit. Doug Weller talk 12:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Are these sources applicable here?
There is a comment by a guy named Doug Weller about reliable sources.

Rajdeep Sardesai - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajdeep_Sardesai

1- He stated on twitter that After spending a day on streets of NE Delhi,my takeaways 1) this is a Hindu Muslim riot in which BOTH communities have been involved in terrible acts of violence. Street Protests, provocation, attack, retaliation, a cycle of violence was unleashed.Tough to say who ‘started’ it.

link-https://twitter.com/sardesairajdeep/status/1232701219711463428

2- BBC - sixth paragraph- ''Access to these areas was severely restricted on Tuesday, when most of the violence took place. Judging by the names released so far, both Muslims and Hindus are among the dead and injured.'' link- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-51639856

3- ‘Trapped for 45 minutes’ “Around 3 p.m., Muslims started throwing stones and eventually Hindus retaliated. My other family members and I who were at the shop managed to go to one of our shops on the street and went to the terrace. We were trapped there for about 45 minutes. I took multiple videos and photographs,” he said while showing them. In the videos, rioters wearing masks and holding sticks were seen throwing stones.

“When I started taking videos, Shahnawaz hid himself,” alleged the 25-year-old.

The police also said that during investigation, eyewitnesses had found him as the ‘main aggressor’.

link- https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/videos-dont-show-it-but-we-saw-him-hurling-stones/article31012364.ece

4- Damage worth crores, AAP MLA’s ‘apathy’ In Shiv Vihar, several shops and homes owned by Hindus were torched on 24 February. Residents alleged that the incineration continued until Thursday morning.

Anil Sharma owned three shops that were set afire — Anil Sweet Corner, Anil Pastry, and a workhouse for both of them. Sharad Kumar, who was employed at the workhouse, told ThePrint: “A mob from the nearby Aqsa Masjid surrounded us from the afternoon of 24 February, and then burned everything down in the next 4-5 hours with petrol bombs and acid bottles. They caused damage of more than a crore to the shops, as each shop had materials worth Rs 40-50 lakh each.”

Sharad continued: “A Muslim mob from adjoining Mustafabad area kept coming back to throw stones and petrol until this morning (Thursday), after which we recovered mutilated bodies of workers which were trapped in a nearby building and workshops.”

link- https://theprint.in/india/anger-towards-other-side-echoes-in-hindu-dominated-areas-of-riot-hit-northeast-delhi/372502/

5- Locals said a large Muslim mob from Mustafabad, which is across a small bridge over a narrow drain from Brijpuri, started pouring in and throwing stones.

"It was chaotic and loud, and we rushed out from our homes to see what was happening," said Sharma, who was with Rahul at the time.

"We hadn't even clearly understood what was happening when a bullet fired from the mob on the other side hit him. He cried out 'oh brother' and collapsed. We rushed him to a hospital but he couldn't be saved," Sharma added.

link- https://www.france24.com/en/20200228-in-delhi-two-tales-of-one-deadly-riot

6- With death staring at them after armed rioters had marched through Shiv Vihar and started setting homes and shops ablaze on February 24, the three women — and hundreds of Muslim and Hindu families — had fled their homes and reached the adjoining neighbourhoods of Mustafabad, Chandu Nagar, Chaman Park, all predominantly Muslim pockets.

Similarly, a large number of Hindu families whose homes have been torched have taken shelter in temples and in the houses of their relatives.

link- https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/delhi-riots-muslim-or-hindu-victims-government-absent-for-all/cid/1750491


 * Its hard to judge without really knowing what you want to use them for. But (for example) the BBC source is very dated and can hardly reflect what we now know.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

are you saying Hindu deceased might come back to life, and I want that the lead which mentions that only Hindu mob attacked Muslims using the word chiefly to be made neutral as few sources mention that Muslim mob from Mustafabad attacked Hindus. France24 link also mentions about Muslim mob.
 * We do not say only Hindu mobs. And so I am not saying people can come back to life, I am saying that a source that is out of date cant be used to reflect current knowledge. If I find a source form 1939 saying that X number of RAF pilots have been killed that can only be used for 1939.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you or other Wikipedia account holders include in this article that Muslim mob from Mustafabad attacked Hindus? Sources given above.

Another source mentions mob from Aqsa masjid without mentioning religion of mob.
 * Does it matter where they attacked from?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Regarding your question about WP:RS, please refer to the section on this page . As for your suggestion, I would firstly like to clarify that the article does not mention that Hindus were not attacked; rather the lead, too, clearly states that while more Muslims were killed, Hindus were also among those murdered. As for the specific text you highlighted, can you please suggest where it could be added in the main body of the article? SerChevalerie (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It should be added in first paragraph that Muslim mob from Mustafabad attacked Hindus as mentioned in sources.

And the page should also mention that Hindu victims took shelter in temples from telegraph source given above, as the main picture is about Muslims taking shelter in temples in tents.

Where it should be mentioned should be decided by those who are editing the article, but these facts should be included.

Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire. This line about how Muslims were killed suggest as if Hindus were killed in less brutal manner or in soothing way.

Which is not, as "The Crime Branch has arrested an accused in connection with the murder case of a man in Gokulpuri, whose body was found in mutilated condition in Anil Sweet House, Brijpuri on February 26 following violence in the national capital, police said. The accused and deceased have been identified as Mohammad Shahnawaz (27), a resident of Shiv Vihar and Dilbar Negi (22), respectively. Negi’s body was burnt by a mob of rioters after cutting off his hands and feet. Six months back, he had come to Delhi from his native Uttarakhand to get employed."

link- https://theprint.in/india/crime-branch-arrests-shiv-vihar-resident-for-murder-of-uttarakhand-man-in-delhi-riots/377284/ Zubisko (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "And the page should also mention that Hindu victims took shelter in temples from telegraph source given above..." ✅ in "Aftermath" section SerChevalerie (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do we need to know where they came from, do we say where the Hindu attack came from?Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you allege that "This line about how Muslims were killed suggest as if Hindus were killed in less brutal manner or in soothing way." However, please read the entire first paragraph, which says, Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire. The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted. As for your statement that "Where it should be mentioned should be decided by those who are editing the article..." please read and follow WP:Edit requests guidelines. Your suggested changes must be in a "Change X to Y" format (along with reliable sources). SerChevalerie (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2020
This article is completely out of facts and can't be trusted. News citations are missing and most of the language written seems personal statements. 122.172.74.123 (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't an edit request. You need to explain exactly what changes you would like made to the article. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)