Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 12

This page violates wikipedia community standards. Extremely biased towards one community
Muslim violence against hindus is virtually nonexistent although 15 hindus died because of muslim violence. Muslim mobs were seen firing gun shots. The article has a lot of assumptions favouring the muslim community. As an example, in one place, the violence by muslim mobs is justified as a necessary step. Is this a personal blog? Chanting of jai shri ram by violent hindu mob is mentioned, but the chanting of allah hu akbar by violent muslim mob is nowhere to be seen. Quanta127 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Muslim mobs firing guns" - bottom of 3rd paragraph. "Allahu Akbar" - section headed 24 February.  Perhaps read the article more closely next time? Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent, published reliable sources say about a subject. No more, and no less. If you have such sources that offer additional information, please offer them- while keeping in mind that this is a contentious issue with strong feelings based on ancient religions on both sides. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

1RR reminder
A reminder that the article is under 1RR sanction, and as noted at the top of this talkpage and in the edit-notice: Today there have been quite a few back-and-forth edits with at least one egregious breach of this sanction. Please be more careful lest more blocks, or stricter discretionary sanctions become necessary. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article.
 * If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.


 * In past 24 hours, there have been 26 edits to the article space, including six by me. You assert that there has been "at least one egregious breach" of the 1RR sanction.
 * In the revision history, I see five edits showing Tag: Undo or Tags: Undo, from five separate editors. I see one edit that is evidently a reversion without being identified as such, but this too is from an editor with no other apparent reversions today.
 * Please help me understand why you felt a reminder was in order. Since I have been involved in these "back-and-forth edits," I'd hate to think I may have inadvertently committed an egregious breach. Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The breach I was referring to was these series of edits:, and . And what made it egreious was the number of edits (all within 3 hours), the lack of any accompanying talkpage discussion by the editor, and them having been previously warned of breaching 1RR on this very page. Hope that clarifies the issue; didn't mean to leave everyone under a cloud of suspicion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your reply, but it doesn't clarify, for me at least, why you felt a reminder was in order for all editors involved with trying to improve 2020 Delhi riots. Since you had already identified the outlier, who was previously warned on his user talk page, and gathered the evidence against him in the form of three compelling diffs, I fail to see what purpose your general reminder served. I'm especially disturbed by your suggestion that "stricter discretionary sanctions [may] become necessary." We've been there and done that. Interested editors have had plenty of time to reflect on how best to proceed. Please give us a chance to work this out on our own before rattling the saber of stricter sanctions. NedFausa (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I for one almost forgot it, and ironically remembered only because of the lead edit restriction that has now been lifted. I have (on other articles) forgot DS sanctions in a raft of to and trowing with other editors.Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a 1RR reminder. But I do object to how it was handled in this instance. NedFausa (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are being oversensitive, I think. Please just move on. El_C 21:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Infobox goals parameter
Two goals of the 2020 Delhi riots are listed: I dispute the latter. Apart from the Infobox and category templates, the word persecution appears nowhere in our article space. The sole reference supporting ethnic and religious persecution is HuffPost India.
 * Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests
 * Ethnic and religious persecution

The subhead of that story declares, "The attacks on the mosques make clear that the violence in New Delhi has nothing to do with the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and everything to do with religious polarisation." (Emphasis added.) Yet the Infobox's first goal reads "Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests," and said legislation is mentioned repeatedly in our article. Clearly, the second reference contradicts our first purported goal and implicates WP:NPOV.

I believe the preponderance of reliable sources supports the first goal. However, the single reference to HuffPost India does not justify such a contentious claim as ethnic and religious persecution, either in the Infobox or in five templates at page bottom: {Religious persecution} [Category:Persecution of Hindus] [Category:Persecution by Hindus] [Category:Persecution of Muslims] [Category:Persecution by Muslims] If a better source cannot be found in a timely manner, these inflammatory claims should be removed. NedFausa (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Under "goals," I propose changing," "Ethnic and religious persecution" to "Targeted violence against Muslims." I also propose that it should swap places with the less notable "goal: "Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests"   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it is a stretch to class these riots as persecution of any group.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. These categories may have been in place when I began to edit the article in early March; to be honest, I never paid much attention to them.  (  "Persecution, of course, is a general word, meaning, "Persecute (v): To seek out and subject (a person, group, organization, etc.) to hostility or ill-treatment, esp. on grounds of religious faith, political belief, race, etc.; to torment; to oppress. (OED)"  ) Targeted violence against Muslims is an aspect of the persecution of them.  In fact, the Wikipedia category "Violence against Muslims" has parent category "Persecution of Muslims."   Still, I would prefer the "persecution" categories to be replaced by a single one [Category:Violence against Muslims]  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose the foregoing proposal to replace persecution categories with [Category:Violence against Muslims], which is overly broad and redundant. The article space already contains [Category:Anti-Muslim violence in India]. That is precise and entirely sufficient. NedFausa (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As categories are navigation aids, they are chosen to be overabundant, and redundant; the redundancy is built into their navigational efficiency. The flagship article for the Category: Anti-Muslim violence in India is Violence against Muslims in India.  Its categories of membership are Category: Violence against Muslims, Category:Anti-Muslim violence in India, Category: Religious riots, Category:Riots and civil disorder in India.  Again: In order to aid navigation by a wide array of users who are looking for different routes and destinations, overabundance and redundancy in categories is necessary.  Similarly, 1990 Bijnor riot has all of the above categories, and also Category:Religiously motivated violence in India.  There is no reason not to have both of the proposed categories in this article and some more in addition.  The infobox is another matter.  It is a major object of WP:Lead fixation.  Its content needs to be chosen accurately neutrally and judiciously.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a scholarly source analysing the goals:
 * Christophe Jaffrelot, Violence in Delhi is intended to polarise as well as to teach a lesson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 29 February 2020.
 * -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, are you offering this source in support of "Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests" as the first goal of the 2020 Delhi riots listed in our Infobox? NedFausa (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, obviously not. Did you read the article? It fits more in ine with Fowler's proposal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The article states: The recent Delhi riots partly fit in the Pai and Singh “model”. Indeed, their timing may not be explained only by the conflict between anti- and pro-CAA activists; it has much to do with the atmosphere created by BJP leaders in the context of the election campaign. But this time, riots took place after the polling days. They took place in some of the few consistencies that the BJP had won or lost with small margins. To me, this looks like support for the claim that "Preventing Citizenship Amendment Act protests" was at least one goal of the 2020 Delhi riots. But thanks for your patronizing dismissal. It's quite helpful. NedFausa (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Mention of "intelligence officer killed" in the lead
Ankit Sharma was the intelligence bureau (IB) staffer who died during the riots in his locality. Firstly he was not an "officer" or spy. He was employed in the clerical cadre in his department as a Security Assistant. (source) Secondly, none of the sources say that he died while on duty. Out of 53 killed in riots, he was just another riot victim. No source says that he died because he was an IB officer. He wasn't on any secret operation assigned by his department, as many people believe thanks to the disproportionate coverage of his murder case in the local electronic media.

I opine that there is no need to distinctly mention his case in the lead alongside Muslim and Hindu victims. Thats why I made this edit but it was reverted. -Yoonadue (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see the claim he was "off duty" (In fact on his way home from work) comes from his family, it is not an official claim.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also is "staffer" an official government job title?Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The claim that he was an off-duty "staffer" is reported in the sources now cited in our article space. We rely on those WP:RS, not on the victim's family. NedFausa (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Source A "His family said he was picked up by a mob on his way home from work." Source B " His family had alleged that he was dragged out of his home", note the two are different stories.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither even include one use of the word off, in any context (or come to that duty).Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * says he was a "Security Assistant", not a Administrative Assistant (In UK parlance), nor in fact is there any use of the word clerical.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. You are seriously claiming that (a) while either on his way home from work or dragged out of his home, he was still ON DUTY and (b) an assistant is not a staffer? NedFausa (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am saying that this is only his family's claim. And no I am not saying an Assistant is not a staffer I am saying neither says what his job actually was.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor does our lead say what his job actually was. Our lead says, per two WP:RS, that he was a staffer. I don't understand what you are arguing here. NedFausa (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We put he was off duty in our voice, if should be "his family say he was off duty".Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Close paraphrasing directs: Close paraphrasing is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words, adding inline citations as required by the sourcing policy. (Emphasis in original.) That is exactly what I have done in our lead, as explained in my edit summary: "whether on his way home from work or dragged from his house, sources agree he was off-duty." NedFausa (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post article says he was an officer. I have compiled a large number of foreign, neutral, third-party, sources upstairs; in addition, I have listed six reliable and respected Indian media outlets.  Why are we citing two unmitigatedly unreliable sources?  Policemen, whether the police chief or a driver, are all officers. Nowhere except in India's hierarchy-ridden society will any of this matter.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I explained in my edit summary, "elsewhere on this page, NDTV is cited 15 times and India Today is cited 22 times." Moreover, neither NDTV India nor India Today is listed among Deprecated sources. They are not unmitigatedly unreliable sources merely because you say they are. NedFausa (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, you seem to be confusing "intelligence officer," which is what we're addressing in this section, with "policeman." Please, let's try to keep this discussion focused. NedFausa (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Finally, The Washington Post is not infallible in such matters. In 2019, said esteemed publication not once but twice misidentified Chelsea Manning as a former Army "intelligence officer," and then had to issue a correction. Manning was, of course, a low-level enlisted intelligence analyst, and never an officer of any kind. NedFausa (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa The citation that had been in place for over a month was to The Washington Post, which said "a police officer and an intelligence officer were also killed." Why have you changed the wording for the latter to a "staffer," when there was no consensus for a change in the sources, which were all over the place in usage during a highly traumatic time?

The Hindu India's most respected newspaper say, "IB Officer." See here, in a headline no less. The Statesman India's second most reliable newspaper says "The family of IB officer Ankit Sharma, ...", but elsewhere uses three terms, "officer," "operative," and "official" and probably "staffer" too in one story. The Indian Express, India's third or fourth most respected newspaper says "IB officer" and later "IB Staffer," see here. The Wall Street Journal says, "The court noted as particularly disturbing death of an official who worked in the city intelligence bureau of the country’s Home Ministry and went missing Tuesday evening.". One of your own sources, India Today, can't make up its mind between Intelligence Official, Intelligence Bureau Operative and "Staffer" in one story.

The terms "officer," "operative," "staffer," and "official"—all seem to have been used. There is no consensus for a change from the precedent, I am therefore changing it back to "officer," unless you are able to demonstrate convincingly that "staffer" is the predominant usage. Please give a demonstration here, and gain consensus for it. WP:BRD recommends that after I revert your WP:BOLD edit, you will need to engage others in a discussion to gain consensus, and to give it good time. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We also have wp:npov and wp:v, we cannot say something a source does not say. Even the sources all admit this is his families claim, not a fact. As with F&F there is no consensus amount RS as to what happened so we cannot just offer one version (see wp:weight). So we can say "Who worked for IB", this might be a better choice of words and "Who according to his family was either on his way home or was at home", we put all versions and we attribute what are allegations. The sources do not say he was on his off duty, they say his family do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead fixation and lead moratorium redux
Folks, the lead moratorium that was placed a while ago was partly with the hope that you would focus your efforts on the body of the article. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. The moratorium has ended and, once again, editors are focused on making niggling changes to the lead and the discussion on those changes spiralling out of control. I'm going to reinstate the lead moratorium for another four weeks and strongly suggest that, in that time, editors avoid discussing the lead and focus on the body of the article.--regentspark (comment) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead of an article is very important. When a reader opens a wikipedia article, the first thing he reads is the lead. It builds the first opinion in reader's mind over a subject. Its quite visible that the present lead has got a lot of issues which needs to be solved. Either the lead should be significantly shortened or it should be left open for editing so that we can get a stable and good lead for long-term. I don't think running away from a problem is the right idea. Even if the moratorium is lifted after four weeks, we would still find ourselves in the same situation. Hence, I suggest you to reconsider putting moratorium on lead. -Yoonadue (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to be a summery of the most important parts of the article. Frankly (even the stuff I am banning on about above) may not have place there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

My lead
Still too long but to my mind more balanced.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven, your proposed lead is more balanced and shorter. However, there are still some issues like in the very first line. The first line of our article reads:

The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.

We should have a more balanced first line like we have in 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots:

The clashes between the Hindu and Muslim communities in Muzaffarnagar district of Uttar Pradesh, India in August–September 2013, resulted in at least 62 deaths including 42 Muslims and 20 Hindus and injured 93 and left more than 50,000 displaced.

This introduction is more neutral and to the point. Moreover, the entire lead section in this 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots article is also short. Shorter lead enables readers to read the main body of article rather than getting stuck in a lenghthy lead. -Yoonadue (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ohh I see


 * How about "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims the rest were Hindus who were shot or assaulted in the Indian capital's deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot since 1950.[15] 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims the rest were Hindus who were shot or assaulted in the Indian capital's deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot since 1950.[15]"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good. But this part of the first line can still be omitted: "who were shot or assaulted in the Indian capital's deadliest Hindu-Muslim riot since 1950." -Yoonadue (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that is exactly the kind of thing we do want, historical context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's baffling that, in a section headed Lead fixation and lead moratorium redux, where admin "strongly suggests" that editors avoid discussing the lead and focus on the body of the article, you are now discussing changes to the lead. Please wake up! That's not going to happen. Admins are determined to, in effect, freeze the lead and protect it indefinitely. Personally, I doubt that they're going to allow significant editing of the body of the article, either. But the lead is clearly off limits. NedFausa (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You left out "strongly suggest". But OK, I am happy with ignoring the lead for now. Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that you're awake, please learn to read. I didn't leave out "strongly suggest"—it's in my first sentence. NedFausa (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct, we have not been told we cannot change the lead or discus it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read the process for revising the article: Talk:2020_Delhi_riots. Very best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, when did that become the process for revising the article? There is not a single comment in that section from any other editor. There is no endorsement by an administrator. There is no consensus. If this is some new Wikipedia "process," I'm anxious to learn more. NedFausa (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Did anyone object? But the point of the admins intervention is that yes until we get the body sorted out it might be a good idea for all of us (that is all of us) to leave the lead alone.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. You're saying that if someone makes a proposal on this talk page, and nobody objects (because the proposal is monstrously overblown, autocratic, and unworkable on its face), said proposal automatically becomes the process that editors must follow? Wow. "Toto, I've a feeling we're not on Wikipedia anymore." NedFausa (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly yes, that is how wp:consensus works, a suggestion is made then discussed and either rejected or accepted. Also I would point out that F&F's suggestion seems to be sort out the body then we can examine the lead, which is also what the admin is suggesting. All f&F did was to lay down a structured framework. Are you saying we should not fix the body before fixing the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please show me where his proposal was discussed and consensus was achieved to accept it. I must have missed that. I thought it was DOA. NedFausa (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Above, everyone had a chance to comment, no one was forbidden from saying "OI FOWLER NOOOOO!!". If no one responds no one has a reason to assume anyone disagrees.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By that standard, if no one responds no one has a reason to assume anyone agrees, either. Am I right? NedFausa (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, if someone objects why would they not say so? shyness? We decide by looking at who said what. not by who did not say what.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So if you object go there and object.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Self-imposed moratorium
My presence here is as pointless as it is fruitless. Accordingly, I am imposing a moratorium on my contributions to 2020 Delhi riots and its associated talk page. I pledge to not return until all moratoria against editing the lead have expired. In other words, I expect my absence to be permanent. Hopefully, this will obviate the need for discretionary sanctions against me. NedFausa (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You do as you see fit, NedFausa|. Hopefully, you will find contributing to other articles rewarding while you wait. El_C 16:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

March 1 date
All the available sources say that the duration of riots was 3 days ie 23 Feb to 25 Feb 2020 but the infobox in our article says 23 Feb to 1 March (7 days). Even the cited reference states riots duration to be 3 days and what happened on 1st March was nothing but rumour. Therefore, I propose correction in riots' date and duration in the infobox. -Yoonadue (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , please refer to the section specifically the part that mentions In the Welcome area, one shop was set on fire on 1 March. Do you have any better WP:RS for the same? SerChevalerie (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the reference from the date parameter of the Infobox because it fails to support riots continuing through 1 March 2020. I left the time interval template intact but added {citation needed}. The previously cited source situates the deadly riots between February 23 and 25; it reports a shop set afire on Saturday, February 29, but that by itself does not constitute a riot. We need a more definitive reference here. NedFausa (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you, I had completely missed this while adding the information. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To begin with, this paves the way for a discussion on the removal (or moving) of the subsubsection dedicated to "1 March". SerChevalerie (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As it stands, 1 March contains just two sentences, the first dealing with rumors and the second recounting closure of seven metro stations for an hour. This is trivial stuff. I support quick removal of that subsection on grounds of being not noteworthy. NedFausa (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I support this change. (If the information is deemed worthy in the future, it can always be pulled from the history). SerChevalerie (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I too support removal of 1 March sub-section. -Yoonadue (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per consensus, I removed 1 March subsection. NedFausa (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * FYI. If anyone has a reasoned objection to the substance of the edit (ie, not just a procedural objection), please let me know on my talkpage, and I'll revert it so that it can be discussed first. Barring that I'd like to keep the admin mitts minimally involved with the page. Happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear I object, and object strenuously.  I have no idea how long the violence lasted, precisely.  But the peremptory declaration of consensus by —who otherwise has been proclaiming "As a practical matter, I no longer believe it's possible to change 2020 Delhi riots through a process of proposal and consensus"—a mere six hours after a post is made is not in keeping with any Wikipedia policy that I know.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And what is it you do not understand about summarizing sources?  Just a couple of days ago, I gave you dozens of reliable sources in the sections above (see Talk:2020_Delhi_riots and Talk:2020_Delhi_riots).  I have offered to give you blurbs about a topic from those that require a subscription. These sources do not point to any consensus about the duration of the riots to be precisely three days. Summary style, or precis writing, is an art, not a science.  You are attempting to do a double distillation, that of the lead, which is already a distillation, in one or two words in an infobox, and are citing it to one random source, which is not the most reliable. I am not saying you are wrong or right, but thus far in the discussions in this talk page, you have done nothing but open new threads that dispute nothing but little details.  Admin Abecedare has already told everyone, as a matter of advice, to focus on the main body, but this advice is going unheeded.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to highlight a few points from the discussion, just to add some more perspective on the issue: Personally I agree with the temporary solution "Feb 23 to approx March 1" offered by Abecedare. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By F&f: "There are all sorts of dates and time frames given for the riots. We, for example, say that mobs of Hindu were going around Muslim neighborhoods attempting to scare Muslims out of house and home in the days leading up to Holi (celebrated March 9). We mention that in the lead. So, what do we mean by putting even the date of March 1 as the last date for the riots? I mean, do we mean, killing? Do we mean intimidation by mobs with threats of death? If the former, what date do we assign to the decomposed bodies found in the fetid canals for days afterward; if the latter, then even March 1 is too soon."
 * By admin Abecedare: "I agree with your position that it will be hard/impossible to nail down any single date as the definitive end-date for the riots... while the discussion on what the final arrangement should be takes place. That final choice could be between excluding dates altogether from the infobox; keeping it really vague "around end-Feb 2020"; slightly vague "Feb 23 to approx March 1"; reflecting the range of dates offered by sources, eg, "3-10 days starting Feb 23"; providing the most common end-date in the infobox and detailing the complexity in a footnote etc."
 * In the meanwhile, I second F&F's suggestion to add the Diplomat source in the infobox in place of the "cn" tag. SerChevalerie (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see this. I meant (and I've corrected on my user talk page) using the citation:, but adding  to call the attention of others, to make it known, that the source "is not unimpeachable," as admin Abecedare so felicitously put it on my user talk page.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please be so kind as to explain why you endorse including March 1 in the Infobox's time interval template. The suggested citation comes from The Diplomat, an international online news magazine based in Washington, D.C. Its author, a senior analyst at a think tank in Singapore, refers to "the February 2020 sectarian violence"—not the February–March 2020 sectarian violence. He does state that mobs clashed "between February 23 and March 1," but it's unclear to me at least whether that means clashes occurred from February 23 through March 1 or February 23 to March 1—i.e., February 23 through February 29.
 * This ambiguity implicates undue weight, which directs: Neutrality requires that each article…fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Is March 1 proportional to the prominence given to that date by a cross-section of reliable sources, or is it what our policy describes as a minority view? Bear in mind, we are proposing to situate this date not buried in body text but within the Infobox, which stands in a prominent place near the top of Wikipedia's 2020 Delhi riots page. The inclusion of {Better source} does not mitigate the undue weight we would accord to March 1 by citing a minority view. NedFausa (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I guess I should have clarified, I only support this proposal on a temporary basis. I still think we should include Abecedare's "Feb 23 to approx March 1" suggestion with F&f's source and a {Better source} tag until we can analyse the sources and clearly determine the exact date. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose your proposal to support "Feb 23 to approx March 1" by citing a source that does not use any form of the word approximate. I object on grounds of WP:SYNTH, which directs: Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Ambiguity ≠ approximate. And again, the {Better source} tag fails to mitigate this issue. Since you readily acknowledge we need a better source, why not find one? NedFausa (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, thanks for pointing that out. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's foreign sources about the duration of the 2020 Delhi riots
Here are some newspaper and media sources from North America, and the UK. They are all over the place, from two to six; the median seems to be four. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The New York Times. (Subscrip. Req.) Jeffrey Gettleman (South Asia bureau chief); Maria Abi-Habib; Kai Shultz; Hari Kumar, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * As New Delhi Violence Rages for 3rd Day, Modi Urges Calm February 26, Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir Quote: "Streets that had been a battle zone were much quieter on Wednesday, with a few sporadic attacks reported but no large-scale mayhem. (Title of video: "
 * As New Delhi Counts the Dead, Questions Swirl About Police Response, February 27, by Jeffrey Gettleman and Suhasini Raj, Photographs by Atul Loke Quote: "The Musharraf family, who are Muslim, locked themselves in a dark room. The breadwinner, a 30-something rickshaw driver, threw himself under the bed and curled up in a wooden box. But the mob of more than 25 men found him. “Please, I’m also your brother,’’ he pleaded and folded his hands in front of his chest, a gesture for mercy, according to several survivors. “I also have young kids, like you.” They clubbed him in the face and dragged him out. Family members, in hiding around the neighborhood, frantically called the police. No one came. As India’s worst spasm of religious violence in years entered its sixth day, with the death toll climbing to at least 38, questions are intensifying about why the New Delhi police failed to quell the bloodletting."
 * In India, Modi’s Policies Have Lit a Fuse, March 1, By Jeffrey Gettleman and Maria Abi-Habib. Quote: "On the fourth day of the violence, after more than 20 people had been killed, Mr. Modi broke his silence and urged “my sisters and brothers of Delhi to maintain peace.”
 * How Delhi’s Police Turned Against Muslims, March 12, By Jeffrey Gettleman, Sameer Yasir, Suhasini Raj and Hari Kumar, Photographs by Atul Loke Quote: "But by Feb. 25 the direction had changed. Hindu mobs fanned out and targeted Muslim families. Violence crackled in the air. Police officers watched as mobs of Hindus, their foreheads marked by saffron stripes, prowled the streets with baseball bats and rusty bars, looking for Muslims to kill. The sky was filled with smoke. Muslim homes, shops and mosques were burned down."


 * The Washington Post. (Subscrip. Req.) Joana Slater (India bureau chief), Neha Masih, Tania Dutta
 * "What Delhi’s worst communal violence in decades means for Modi’s India," March 2, Slater and Masih. Quote: "Down a nearby alleyway, plastic chairs were set out to accommodate mourners at the home of two brothers killed in the riots. Aamir Khan, 30, and his brother Hashim, 19, were on their way to Mustafabad on Wednesday night but never arrived. The next day, their brother Sheruddin said, police showed the family photos of the motorcycle they had been riding, now burned, and of their bodies, both with stab wounds. Their mother sat on the floor in a cramped room, surrounded by women, her face contorted by grief. Aamir’s wife lay next to her, immobile under a brown blanket."


 * The Wall Street Journal (Subscrip. Req.)Bill Spindle (South Asia bureau chief); Vibhuti Agarwal (Commodities Reporter); Krishna Pokharel (Reporter)
 * "India Begins Probe of Clashes That Left 38 Dead," (Agarwal, Spindle, February 27) Quote: "Indian authorities tried to calm tensions in the nation’s capital and began investigating four days of rioting and clashes between Hindus and Muslims that left at least 38 dead and more than 300 injured in the worst violence the capital has seen in decades."


 * The Christian Science Monitor (Subscrip. Req.) Farhad Shah, India contributor
 * After Delhi’s burst of violence, a Muslim artist takes stock, March 5, 2020, Farhad Shah. Quote: "For four days, the riots continued, killing at least 52 people – mostly Muslim – and injuring more than 350. Hindu mobs attacked Muslims, and Muslims retaliated. Video that Rehan received from a neighbor shows a cloud of smoke coming out of a house, burnt by mobs, and a blast, perhaps from cooking gas. In another video, Rehan points out a damaged mosque, saying, “I offer prayers at this mosque every day.”


 * Associated Press (Subscrip. Not Req.)
 * Correspondents: Emily Schmall (South Asia correspondent) Sheikh Saaliq, Ashok Sharma
 * Carried by The Globe and Mail, Toronto, also does not have a correspondent in Delhi and uses AP and Reuters.
 * Death toll from New Delhi riots rises to 46 as India’s capital remains on edge, March 2, 2020, Sheikh Saaliq, Associated Press News. Quote: "Some of the victims accuse Kapil Mishra, a local leader of Mr. Modi’s party who lost his Delhi state assembly seat in recent elections, of stoking the violence. Mr. Mishra had demanded at a rally that police shut down a Muslim-led protest in the city or else he and his followers would do it themselves. Hours later, Hindus and Muslims fought each other with guns and swords, metal rods and axes, leaving the streets where the rioting occurred resembling a war zone. The violence had largely subsided by Wednesday, but the Indian capital has remained on edge. Most of the dead and injured were Muslims, with thousands fleeing their homes in fear."


 * National Public Radio, (Subscrip. Not Req.) Lauren Frayer, India correspondent, based in Mumbai.
 * 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
 * Delhi riots forced thousands of Muslims from their homes, and they're afraid to go back, March 11, Arshad R. Zagar Quote: "It started on February 24, the eve of President Donald Trump's visit to India, when supporters of a controversial new citizenship law, seen by many as discriminatory against the country's minority Muslim population, clashed with people protesting against it ... "What's the point of going back and remaining in constant fear of getting attacked again?" asked Mohammed Dilshad as he lay on a bed in the Mustafabad camp with both his arms in casts. He was attacked by a mob on February 25 along with four friends on the outskirts of Shiv Vihar. "I may have been lucky this time, but that may not be the case next time," he said. He said his friend Naseem Ahmad's cousin wasn't so lucky. He was found dead inside his burned home on the third day of violence, Ahmad said.   A team of doctors at the Mustafabad camp have seen early signs of depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) developing in the survivors."


 * 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. Quote: 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.


 * Guardian, Hannah Ellis-Peterson, Delhi correspondent.
 * Delhi rocked by deadly protests during Donald Trump's India visit, February 25, Hannah Ellis-Peterson
 * Delhi protests: death toll climbs amid worst religious violence for decades, Febuary 26, Hannah Ellis-Peterson
 * 'I cannot find my father's body': Delhi's fearful Muslims mourn riot dead, March 6, by Hannah Ellis-Petersen and Shaikh Azizur Rahman Quote: "The violence raged across the north-east of India’s capital for four days as mosques were set alight, Muslims were burned alive in their homes or dragged out into the streets and lynched. Muslim businesses and property were also set alight. In streets where Hindus and Muslims had lived peacefully side by side, bodies lay bloodied alongside discarded and burned-out cars, bikes, shattered glass and smouldering shopfronts. The police have been accused of enabling, encouraging or even joining in with Hindu mobs."
 * Delhi's Muslims despair of justice after police implicated in riots, March 16, Hannah Ellis-Petersen and Shaikh Azizur Rahman


 * Independent, (Subscrip. Req.) Adam Withnall, Asia editor based in Delhi.
 * "Delhi riots: Dust settles after worst religious violence in decades as locals demand accountability," February 27, by Adam Withnall. Quote: "Both the central administration of prime minister Narendra Modi and the city’s devolved government were being criticised on Thursday over how hundreds of hooligans chanting Hindu nationalist slogans were able to attack Muslim properties and religious sites for three days before the situation was brought under control."


 * 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: "On Wednesday morning, Mr Modi’s government, which has control over policing and is responsible for security in the capital, deployed thousands of additional paramilitary police to the riot-stricken areas to try to restore order. That afternoon, Mr Modi took to Twitter to appeal for peace — his first public acknowledgment of the violence. But even amid the strong police presence, tensions remained high, with many families fleeing to seek refuge with relatives elsewhere... Analysts said the rioting may not be as severe as other urban violence that has rocked India. But the government's apparent tolerance of two days of unchecked bloodshed had sent a powerful signal to a Muslim community that already felt under siege, they said."

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence" There can be no reference for this line. This is a big claim. Has it been proven that the muslim violences were in self defence? There is no doubt that muslims have suffered the most in the riots. But can violence by muslims be justified? This kind of personal assumption, where there is justification for violence, is definitely wrong and should be taken seriously. Quanta127 (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Its practically a quote for an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is. I had paraphrased it as "encountered apprehended threats of violence," the encounter(v) with a more focused meaning: "To meet as an adversary; to confront in battle, assail" but the editors-that-be changed it to "counter," which has a more general meaning.  But it's OK.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Lets try to conclude it. The last incident of violence was reported on 29 Feb 2020 when a shop was set on fire in Welcome area. So the duration of riots in infobox should be changed to "23 Feb-29 Feb (7 days)". -Yoonadue (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , we have no WP:RS that says so. Please see the list of RS listed above and the deliberation that we had over them. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie, do we really include only that content for which we have sources that directly say so? Aren't we supposed to use our common sense in some instances? I raised a topic which is now archived here regarding an unsourced line in the lead. 4-5 people responded to it but no-one could present an RS which directly implies the line in question. But guess what, the line is still there in the lead as the discussion couldn't reach any conclusion. In this case also we won't be able to reach any conclusion if we continue asking for RS which directly tells us the exact duration of riots. I don't think we should keep tag in such basic information like duration of riots. We have reliable sources which say that various incidents of violence occured from 23-29 Feb but not a single incident was reported after that. Thats why I propose this change and removal of tag. -Yoonadue (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes as that is what wp:v says. After all why does you "common sense" trump someone elses "common sense"?Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , everything that we add must be supported by RS. Wikipedia is known for its WP:verifiability. The "citation needed" must remain until we are able to reach a consensus on the exact duration of the riots, as supported by RS. I support the change to 23-29 Feb (6 days) with the "citation needed" tag (since it was I who had mistakenly attributed the Welcome area incident to 1st March and edited the infobox soon after the riots "ended"). As for your other proposed change, significant RS mention that the person in question was significant in the narrative of the riots, and the current sentence states only what the RS do. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Souniel Yadav is canvassing through email.
User:Souniel Yadav emailed me through Wikipedia about edits on this article and asked me to reinsert his edits. I don't know why he chose me. He's probably emailing everyone who posted on some India related page. TryKid (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You should take this to wp:ani really so it can be looked into.Slatersteven (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really needed anymore I think, he's already blocked as a sock. TryKid (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up to you and to.
 * and, who had separately been sanctioned for conduct on this page and then had emailed editors to recruit meatpuppets, have been found to be sock-accounts and have been blocked. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another one bites the dust. El_C 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I just assumed it would take a bit longer than this to get a sanction.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Article looks like a deliberate attempt to portray the riots as planned violence against Muslims
It is apparent that this article is highly biased and written by vested interests who are intent on portraying the riots as being a planned riot against Muslims when it was a communal clash between anti-CAA and pro-CAA activists which escalated out of control. Replace "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." with "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of riots which broke out in Northeast Delhi between Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and pro-CAA protestors on 23rd February, 2020. The violence took a communal turn and led to the death of over 53 people over the course of next 10 days. More than 200 were left injured. Shops and houses were burnt down and even places of worship were attacked." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticdays (talk • contribs) 12:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do we say it was planned?Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If the article is stating what those sources say incorrectly, please offer corrections.  If the sources are incorrect, you will need to address your concerns to them.  This is a contentious issue, with passionate supporters of ancient religions on each side all with deeply held views. Unless you have evidence (without outing editors) of an organized effort to whitewash this or any article, please don't toss around accusations.  Focus on the article content and the sources. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources as listed above in some other thread can never be sufficient enough to write a neutral and balanced article on this platform. How can the mainstream local media be left out? I mean if The Hindu and Indian Express are considered reliable, what wrong have Hindustan Times, The Times of India, The Economic Times, Business Standard, The Print, The FirstPost, India Today, NDTV done to be left out? -Yoonadue (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they have axes to grind.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , ToI has been listed as being somewhat unreliable by WP:RSN. As for the rest mentioned by you, can you please cite some sources for the improvement of the article, with the specific changes you have in mind? That being said, for a controversial topic such as this one, we have to be particular about the quality of sources chosen. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Article lead is misleading, need to include investigation and arrests for the cause of riots
Foreign based newspapers such as New York Times have attempted to portray the riots as caused by Hindus. However, police investigations and evidences have suggested involvement of Islamic fundamentalist organizations e.g. PFI. There is not even a single mention of PFI which was involved in financing the riots and whose major functionaries have been arrested with evidences. When I tried to mention arrests of PFI members, the edit was deleted. Why should it not be included in the lead? Sachin.cba (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead is under discretionary sanctions. You may add this information in the relevant section ("Investigation"). However it is a case of WP:RECENTISM since no convictions have been made yet. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And wp:crime.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Comunist resume always based on propaganda masonry we have a brief description of this all type of propaganda masonry Shiv bharose (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you know what communism is. Praxidicae (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the body
OK, what more is there to add? I am not really seeing much expansion over the last 10 days. Rather minor fiddling about with wording.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * SerChavelerie is expanding the article, and has mainly been working on the Aftermath section. We haven't heard anything from him about being done.  For a controversial article such as this, the sources being used in many sections are not reliable.  I have very painstakingly made a list of the highly reliable sources, both foreign and Indian.  They are not being used.  Also, a few months have to elapse for the more considered views, written with greater perspective, to appear.  The reporting and analysis here is barely one month old; the second month became buried under the Coronavirus avalanche. I obviously oppose any editing of the lead for now.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said it seems to have not been edited for a while, but we can wait.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Timeline" section needs to be trimmed or expanded as per WP:DUE. For a start, Slatersteven had suggested that we shouldn't mention the names (or even the religions) of specific people killed. After that the 3 sections regarding the investigation ("Investigation", "SC Hearing", "HC hearing") need to be trimmed as per WP:10YEARTEST, but we definitely need a significant judgment and conviction(s) for that. (Obviously there's a lot more, this is just me being specific off the top of my head). WRT the "Aftermath" section, I found a new source that I will add soon, but I have covered all that I had wanted to add till now. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , since you had promised to help with the cleanup of the body, any specific suggestions? SerChevalerie (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think has explained that some time ago. We need to go through the sources he brought to the table and bring the body in line with it. In the process, we might also take out some of the excessive detail from the lead and incorporate in the body. But, while the moratorium is in place, we would need to obtain consensus for every bit that needs to be so moved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

,, and others, I am not too happy with the section on "Local opposition to the riots". Seems like WP:RECENTISM and it mentions names which puts me on edge regarding WP:BLP. Overall it feels like isolated incidents have been strung together to create a WP:SYNTH about "interfaith cooperation". That's just my take, let me know what you think. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK so lets take one thing at a time.

Names
Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and wp:crime we should not really have any names, I suggest reaming all real names.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the removal of victims. The names of the accused can remain if it is proved by multiple independent RS that they are significant to the narrative of the riots as per WP:BLPNAME. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK so we lets just go with the victims for now. Does anyone object to their removal?Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and go ahead, since you have brought this up on the Talk page before and even I had agreed with you with no other opposition. If anyone has any problems we can then go through WP:BRD. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, BOLD is perfectly fine for the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I have removed any names of victims, but might have missed some in other section.Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Each and every incident
I am not sure we need even a list of individual incidents, just a brief "daily" total (it we have top have a daily running tally).Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about WP:DUE there. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would have said that Due means we do not give undue emphasis to individual incidents. Why is one persons death more due than another?Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We do it as per WP:WEIGHT. The mention of incidents does not necessarily have to do with the individuals killed, but the kind of act that caused the deaths. If people rioting with each other get killed, that is an entirely different kind of death from innocent people getting burnt in their homes or beaten to death while going their way on the road. If those acts are coupled with slogans, they are even more notable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, individual incidents referring to individual deaths? or referring to sentences like In Ashok Nagar, a mosque was vandalized and a Hanuman flag was placed on one of the minarets of the mosque. It was also reported that prayer mats of the mosque were burnt and torn pages from the Quran were strewn outside the mosque. A mob shouting the slogans Jai Śrī Rām (transl. "Hail Lord Rama") and Hindūō̃ kā Hindustān (transl. "India for Hindus") marched around the mosque before setting it on fire and looting adjacent shops and houses. According to local residents, the attackers did not belong to the area. After the first wave of violence by rioters, the police evacuated Muslim residents and took them to the police station.? SerChevalerie (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Deaths are what mainly concern me. Though I am not too sure we need a day by day account either.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , makes sense. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020
"groups of violent Hindu men attacked Muslim houses and businesses for three days, often firebombing them with cooking gas cylinders and gutting them without any resistance from the police." The whole narrative is written as if the Muslims were victims. [sorry, missed this - redacting accusations of criminal activities against named people as a WP:BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

By the end the whole article is written with conspiracy theory alone in mind. Single sided to show Muslim as victims while the video proofs were available that this wasn't the case. Please read the case history once. Rajag89 (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Deaths per each community
The article state death from each community from The Wire alone, however there is no other source reporting the exact number, not even the NE Delhi Police, even until now. I understand that The Wire is considered a reliable source, as stated in WP:RS, but shouldn't the fact that even the Wire article cited here itself does not give much emphasis on the exact number (it's mentioned in the body of their article rather than in it's main lead), despite the absence of the same information anywhere else be taken into account now? Aswin8 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We use what sources we have available. If you know of other sources, please bring them up. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm talking about, there's no source to back up The Wire's claims. Aswin8 (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not need RS to back to RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reality of riots
There were many stories that people told the media about the incidents that happened in North East Delhi, but after the investigation teams ,police started to look for the cause there were many videos that went viral showing how the house of a AAP's (Aam Aadmi Party) councillor being used by the muslim mob for throwing petrol bombs, acid packets, stones. Also how people can be seen in videos throwing bodies in the drain of the councillor. The school whose owner was a muslim guy had a big slingshot on the rooftop of its school just before the riots and that was the area of the shiv vihar locality where most of the hindus homes were burnt by that very slingshot. Tahir hussain denied him being at the time of riots but his video at the time of riots went viral with him being with the people who had sticks/cue. So if it was hindu who attacked muslims first how come the police or the media discovered slingshot ,acid packets, stones, petrol bomb bottles on the rooftop of muslims ? Even we deny the fact that it was not pre planned by Muslims why did shiv vihar's, muslim people didn't send their kids to school at the very first day of riots ? All the muslim kids were at home when they have to be at school. And even there were so many videos that went Viral and on behalf of those videos police were able to arrest people. So how come the videos that were created at different times and from different persons can be fake ? The riot was started by the Muslim Mob who were protesting against CAA and NRC, when they were on roads in the area yamuna vihar nearby to the locality of the riots. As there were approx 2000 people already gathered for the CAA protests and police personnals were also there so the crowd along with a person named killed a constable by firing. They also set fire to the DCP (Amit Sharma) burnt his vehicle and beaten him but he was saved. There was also a incident which shocked the whole nation. An I.B officer Ankit Sharma was killed and he was said to be stabbed 400 times. This clearly shows the hate the rage that some people are carrying with them. This whole article and this whole nation always shows the Muslim as a victim. And they also like to play victim card whenever possible. If this article was created to provide information to the people then dont mislead with only half the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leakyleaks (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What specific suggestions do you have for improving this article? You will need independent reliable sources to support your proposed changes. This is not a place to discuss conspiracy theories or speculation- the article contains what independent reliable sources describe. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And please do not impugn an entire religious group("they like to play the victim card"). If you are only here to talk negatively about any religious group or group of people, you will need to do so on another website. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok so i cant mention an enrire community in a comment by typing "they always play victim card" .But the entire community can create a wiki page based on half information and can mention a entire religion or community and can claim that the community is the root of riots ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leakyleaks (talk • contribs)
 * Please edit the existing section, and do not create new discussion sections(this is easier to do in the desktop version than the mobile version, you can use the desktop version on your phone). No, you cannot cast aspersions against an entire religious group.  You don't know the religion of any user.  As we have asked you, if you have specific suggestions for improving this article and have proper reliable sources, please offer them. Otherwise, there is nothing more to be done here.  Again, remember that this is a contentious issue with strong passions based in ancient religions on each side.  It is important to be civil and refrain from attacks on people or religious bigotry. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of us are not even part of the same nation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , there are two issues here. First is the apparent bias in the article. That can be solved, only if we, as editors, cooperate and use proper language without levelling allegations against each other. Second is your attitude. You can’t accuse anyone of political bias as if they mean to screw up Wikipedia, because sometimes, even the best editors may create bias inadvertently by removing things that appear to be false, even if they’re true, and you can not generalise any group as good or bad. Every demographic has some nuts, liars, fanatics and the like. But at the same time, there are also good people in every demographic. Anyways, my advice to you regarding improving the article is:


 * 1) Please find reliable newspapers websites (India Today, Times of India) which cover the information you wish to add.
 * 2) Avoid fake news sites and highly biased sources (like OpIndia, (which has often been declared as an unreliable site here and even harassed a Wikipedia editor earlier this year by posting his personal information online) or National Herald, which is run by the Indian National Congress)
 * 3) Use proper grammar and avoid exaggerating statements.
 * Regards, RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)