Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 16

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2020
Change "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" to "caused chiefly due to differences between two different sections"Kunal1607 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC). Kunal1607 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . The current text is supported by citations to reliable sources. If you have alternate reliable sources to offer, please present them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course there are numerous reliable sources. I have tried multiple times to upload those references. But the editors are not allowing those references. By allowing only a few references and then saying that is the text is supported by citations to reliable resources is shameful. Totally biased article. Violation of WP:NPOV. The editors are saying the thise allegations have not been established by an indian court. For example Mr. Tahir Hussain's confession that the riot was pre planned and that he wanted to teach the hindus a lesson is not getting included in the article. There are no references regarding those events. The editors are simply not allowing to include those references. But there are numerous references which are blaming hindus, which are showing that hindus are the culprits behind the riot. So the current text is supported the references allowed by the editors. There are numerous valid references which sre showing the other side of the story, the the editors are not allowing thise references because of their POV. Quanta127 (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Blaming a particular religion by including only one group of references and not allowing another group of references is disgusting because Wikipedia is not a personal blog to push someone's POV. Quanta127 (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not a violation of NPOV as we have tried to use truly neutral sources that belong to neither side, they are not even the same nationality. Ask yourself why only one sides sources are picking up most of these "facts"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven okay let's discuss about the "truly neutral" sources. Lets discuss the indian national news sources because many of the foreign media articles are actually personal opinions rather than actual news. These opinions have been shared as truly neutral sources. But lets focus on the national "truly neutral" sources. The same truly neutral sources have published articles which present the other side of the story. Same truly neutral sources have published articles which discusses Mr Tahir Hussain's involvement in the riot. The same "truly neutral" sources have uploaded videos which show mob throwing petrol bombs and arson from Mr. Tahir Hussain's terrace. Then please include those references which belong to the truly neutral category. Many known left leaning sources have also been included but right leaning sources have been kept at bay. Of course neither Mr Hussain nor Mr. Tahir has been found guilty by an indian court yet. But news about Mr kapil Mishra's involvement is all over the article. Good thing is that his counter argument is also there. But what about news about Mr Hussain's involvement. Because that is also news. That Mr. Hussain has acknowledged his involvement in the riot is a fact. It is a truth. That doesn't mean that Mr Hussain is guilty. Maybe delhi police is distorting facts. No one knows now. It will be after the court order. But that doesn't change that fact that Mr. Hussain has made a confession. Why this important event related to the riot has been hidden by the editors? An important event relating to the riot is not getting included in the article. People who will read the article will not even know that there was a confession. It is getting screened by the editors. Of course there are reports about the police distorting the facts. There are references about that also. Then include those also. Including this news of events does not make him guilty. But to hide a fact just because of personal POV is a definite violation of WP:POV. Whether its national or international, only one side of the story is included in the article. Even whole incidents and important events regarding the riots are hidden from this article about the delhi riots because these stories contradicts the introduction of the article that the hindus are the culprits.

I really don't understand the last sentence. Are you suggesting that only one group of news media is presenting the facts. If that is the case then that simply not true. Many news media are publishing both sides of the story. Quanta127 (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding "That Mr. Hussain has acknowledged his involvement in the riot is a fact. It is a truth.". Actually, it is not, as I note above. His lawyer said he did not confess and at least one sources says any confession could not be used in court.  Thus putting it in this article is a severe WP:BLP violation as others would read that and assume he is guilty. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No Hussain's "confession" is not a fact, its an allegation denied by his lawyer, a fact that your sources have largely ignored. there is an implication form at least one source is just some random policeman who then went to the press with something he had heard,. rather then being a properly taken statement). This (maybe why) it not been really picked up outside India, because it is hearsay. And this is why we are dubious, to push what is (at best) an unsubstantiated allegation that violates two core polices (wP:blp and wp:crime) makes us suspicious of the rest of the claims.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I have already gotten an warning. Still ill say this one line. Allegations about Mr mishra are facts? Who verified those allegations? Why are they present in the page then? Quanta127 (talk) 11:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You will need to ask the sources being used how they verified their information. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

My god! Are they verified? Have they been proven in an indian court? So you think allegations about Mr mishra are verified information? So no court order is required now? I cant believe this. No wonder I got a warning. Articles about Mr tahir Hussain are not verified? When its mr Hussain we need court ruling and when it is Mr mishra all references are "verified" news articles? Then please include "verified" news articles about Mr Hussain involvement. Or rule will be different for Mr Hussain? Do not include the confession. But include other allegations which are "verified" By the news agencies. Quanta127 (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are willfully ignoring what you have been told or don't understand it, but there clearly isn't any point in going around in circles on this. If you have proposed changes to this article with independent reliable sources to support them, please offer them.  Otherwise, please move on from this. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not everything has to be proved in court, but criminal activity does. We cannot say or even suggest that someone is guilty of a crime before they are convicted of a crime in a court of law(ideally with a fair trial, but that isn't required). 331dot (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

O::kay Quanta127 (talk) 12:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry to resucitate this messy thread, but that's an interesting point. In cases where reliable secondary sources feel that a trial isn't fair, have we had discussion as to inclusion (unsure if that applies here, but a general issue, perhaps)? BLPCRIME exists to prevent reputational damage that may be unwarranted. An unfair trial is by definition unwarranted, so I don't see how it could be perceived as acting as sufficient evidence to state someone's guilt when no trial wouldn't be. Has this been discussed before? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see it crime come into play when we say someone has committed a crime. We do not say mishra committed a crime, not (as far as I can tell) has he denied saying these things (nor can I see where he denies his call for action provoked the riot). Now of course we could say (about Hussain) "He has been accused (by Indian media) of confessing to organising the riots, a claim he lawyer has denied", but really what does that add?Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that has been discussed or not. If someone is convicted as the result of an unfair trial, we can at least say they were convicted and if RS say the trial was unfair, that can be said as well. 331dot (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2020
106.198.194.192 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC) I want to change some grammatic errors
 * Thank you, which ones?Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. If you want to re-open the edit request, set the  or   parameter to no to reactivate your request.  Seagull123  Φ  15:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2020
In the Aftermath section please provide link to existing page for Asaduddin Owaisi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaduddin_Owaisi

During a parliamentary debate over the riots on 11 March, Home Minister Amit Shah gave his condolences to the families of those who died due to the violence and assured them of justice. He went on to commend the Delhi Police for their efforts and blamed Muslim leaders and members of the Congress party for instigating the riots. Another BJP MP, Meenakshi Lekhi, accused ISIS elements of having organised the riots. Members of the opposition like Kapil Sibal, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury and Asaduddin Owaisi criticised the government for its lack of timely action.[194][232] 119.74.169.63 (talk) 10:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * we already link to his article in another section.Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning the editing standard of not linking same item multiple times in an article. With same standard kindly remove link for Narendra Modi to maintain consistency in edit throughout article. "After three days of violence with 20 deaths, the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, shared a message on Twitter asking people to maintain peace. Commentators said that he reacted only after the departure of President Trump, whom he had been hosting on a state visit while the riots began" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell he was only linked twice, I have removed the extra one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is completely misinformed.
The information presented in the 2020 Delhi riots page is completely skewed and should be allowed access to edit the same. If not, I would sincerely request the admins to verify the claims made within and make amends asap.

Thank you. Vickyathyd (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Without giving us examples how can we comment on if you are correct? Of course if you are taking about the stuff we have already disused 15 times you have your answer.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have specific examples that you believe are inaccurate, please describe them, but first review the numerous prior discussions and the policies described in those discussions. Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; if those sources are incorrect, you should take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

information about Tahir Hussain confession
Here is no information about Tahir Hussain confession on planning of agression, no information about saifi who received funds from UK, Oman, kuwait Mk921 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * UK? that a new accusation. See the tons of talk about the rest above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Chronology and the facts are wrong
CAA doesn't remove any citizen of India and was a propaganda of leftist opposition. The Riots started on the day Donald Trump visited which is an accepted fact. During the riot the first act of violence was done by women in burka who attacked police constables and killed one of the constables. Video evidence is available. Thair Husain who was the master mind of the Riots has accepted his role in distruction of the city. A lot of other facts have been over looked in this article and a narrative of intolerance is being projected.

PLEASE HAVE A BETTER EDUCATED ARTICLE. Sai Mohith Ind (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources for BLP violations?Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

please update the article after reffering to the following sources:
as most of the sources sited are newspaper and such sources: https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075 Mr. Tahir hussain confesses as it being a plan to teach hindus a lesson: https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/delhi-riots-ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-confession-mastermind-behind-north-east-delhi-violence-639145 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITr_leWQZI videos of sticks and items on Tahir hussains house: sources: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/wanted-to-teach-hindus-a-lesson-using-political-power-ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-confesses/videoshow/77325737.cms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoyNFkc4jqU keeping in mind most of the sources mentioned for the article are news paper reports, videos that were showed on news channel and these other newspapers should be at the very least taken into consideration, this would be fair to the Wikipedia's principle of neutrality. as per the speculation that were raised on the confession by various channels it should be noted that these very channels were readily making judgments and tagging these riots to the Hindu community. so i request u too take the above sources into consideration and do justice to the neutrality that Wikipedia claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejaswa4 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See all the talk page sections above about this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Video can be just as non neutral and biased as printed sources. As noted, this has been discussed ad nauseam before, and you do not offer anything new. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The Information given in this article is wrong!!!
You must have done some research before putting up the facts in wiki. You see every country men looks up to Wikipedia for looking of facts and it is painful to see that the article in Wikipedia is incorrect. Please do not make this mistake and reconsider the facts and do some research please! Dracule29 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Then tell us what facts we have wrong, using only independent RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I've semi protected the article for a short time. We have enough confirmed editors discussing content and I noticed that numerous new editors are posting basically the same content requests. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It was quiet for a couple of days, but there was a surge of such requests today for some reason. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The opindia piece most likely.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There's always a reason. This time it's probably Bloomsbury withdraws book on Delhi pogrom launched by hate peddlers including Kapil Mishra and also see this newslaundry piece 'Our logo used without our knowledge': Bloomsbury India says it's not organising a launch event for Delhi riots book. Doug Weller  talk 17:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Lede section
The lede seems misleading. It says "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." with the NY Times citation. The article says, "Hindus and Muslims then started throwing rocks at each other, and the unruly crowd grew." Also provocation by other party leader is not only mentioned by the court now, it was mentioned back in february also. see this- see. Another source say, "confesses to being mastermind behind communal violence". These should be taken into account. Lede is the main part, and it seems not following npov. its a 50-50 case from both parties., while only one is mentioned.  ❯❯❯  S A H A   19:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * it's sourced to The Guardian (cite [12] in the current version), not the NYT. The Guardian (16 March 2020) source quoted reads in part: "... the violence, which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims...". Are there any reliable sources, preferably international, that say it was "50-50"? Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , its sourced to both 12 & 13. NY Times says that both pelted stones. Also, other sources say it was a preplanned attack. So, how can we conclude the fact with just the 'Guardian' source?  ❯❯❯  S A H A   06:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any reliable sources saying it was "preplanned". The confession of Tahir Hussein was previously addressed here, I think by Kautilya3. I think the argument was that the police can obtain any confession from anybody in their custody, it doesn't really mean anything. Confessions are often retracted in the courtroom and some are deemed "inadmissible". So, unless he's convicted and the RS address it, I don't think it can be included in the article. Do a search for "Tahir" in the talk archives, you'll find previous discussions on this. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 06:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , but what about the lede? also in 26 Feb section citation [112], it says kapil mishra was blamed, but not convicted. so, how it makes sense? anyone can blame anybody, like the confession, right...?  ❯❯❯  S A H A   07:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay let me recap. You bring up two claims: (1) the riot wasn't one sided, both groups were equally responsible; and (2) Tahir Hussain's role is as significant as Kapil Mishra's and should be mentioned in the lead too. (Correct in case I'm misrepresentating your statements). The first issue is refuted by NYT (12 March; citation [32] in current version) source which says that the violence started when some Hindus ejected "Muslim protesters" near their neighborhoods, it turned "two sided" by the day's end but "by Feb. 25 the direction had changed". Now, the second issue: the sources you present doesn't say that Hussain *was* the mastermind, they just say that he confessed to be so. Wikipedia lede also doesn't say Mishra incited the riot, it just says that violence erupted after Mishra's ultimatum; multiple RS point out Mishra's ultimatum as a significant event before the violence. Can you present any RS that similarly claim that the violence erupted after or as a result of Hussain's actions/speeches? Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 07:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you misinterpret my latest reply. I didn't ask to add Tahir Hussain in lead. I'm saying, none of them are convicted (I googled, but couldn't find Kapil Mishra convicted). So, how add only one name? Both of them are accused/blamed. The [32] NYT citation does say it was both sided, later direction changed. So, the lead, the most important part of an article, should be rewritten. Like, "Initially both Hindus and Muslims equally caused riots, although later the things changed."  ❯❯❯  S A H A   08:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We say it started after Misras speech because RS do. The difference is one is accused of a crime, the other is accused of making an initiatory speech, not of an actual crime. As well as Please read all the talk page discussion above bout the "confession", I am not repeating myself for 15th time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand that. I am not saying change everything and everywhere. Or add Tahir Hussain. I am talking just about a particular section. In the #26_February section, it just says "blame". This needs to be changed. Suppose someone reads just this one, it will be misleading. The initiatory speech" word can be added.  ❯❯❯  S A H A   10:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not the lede. The 26th February section does not use the word blame.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the modification you propose, that the riot was initially caused by both Muslims and Hindus, is not supported by RS. The NYT citation clearly states that the violence started when some anti-CAA protesters were ejected, presumably by CAA supporters. It became two sided later. It's hard to pinpoint the start of a riot, but the sources agree that it had something to do Mishra's ultimatum to anti-CAA protesters. I'm not sure about Tahir Hussain, but from the 24-hour TV drama that I watched at the time, it looked like the main thrust against him was that he "wanted to teach the Hindus a lesson" and the main evidence was the presence of Molotov cocktails and bricks at his house but again 24h TV is hardly a reliable source; so it'll be great if you can produce an RS that actually states that Tahir Hussain [might have] instigated in the riots as the links you provided only report on his own confession that is of dubious value. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 09:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead sentence is not talking about how the riot started. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, my comment from "the NYT citation clearly..." was about Mishra's name in the third paragraph of lede cited to [32], not about the first sentence. Should have made that more clear. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 10:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Chiefly" word in the lede is misleading. The riot was done by both parties. There are sources for that. (NYT is there).
 * RS like, say it was preplanned. But doesnt mention any community. So, how can we write "Chiefly"?
 * OK end of AGF, are we talking about the lede or the 26th august section?Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * both. I started with lede, but it linked to 26 feb one... better to discuss separately.  ❯❯❯  S A H A   13:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Chiefly does not mean solely.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Rana Ayyub's opinion is not an RS.
The writer of "gujrat files" and renowned Modi hater Rana Ayyub's opinion has been cited as RS #48. Is this a joke? Please remove reference number [48]. Please understand that just because some references support your POV doesn't mean that is an RS. Then please include some random bjp supporting journalist's opinion also. I will be happy to share some of those here. Quanta127 (talk) 11:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No issue with its removal, why do we need it?Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I've removed the opinion piece. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 11:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My edit wasn't saved to a server error. Let me try again. TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 11:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * okay finally done. I've removed Ayyub's opinion piece. Regards, TryKid&thinsp;[dubious – discuss] 11:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect
Please be mindful, everyone. El_C 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Can this fact be included in a new section or mentioned somewhere in the article. Zikrullah (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It is noted in in the article whenever one edits, in Template:Editnotices/Page/2020 Delhi riots, as well as at the top of this talk page in Template:IPA AE. El_C 18:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims?
Most of the info is factually incorrect and biased. This article shows someone’s agenda, nothing else. India. Maheshbrahma (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review the numerous other similar claims made by others on this (and archived) talk pages. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about this event.  We're trying to use news sources from outside of India due to bias in Indian news sources. Keep in mind that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; the sources are presented for the reader to evaluate and judge any bias for themselves.  If you would care to specific passages that are incorrect, and offer independent reliable sources to support your claims, you may do so, but again, please see prior attempts to do so by others first. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@311dot what do u mean bias in indian news sources?? This statement is a clear proof of your bias. Have you seen the article? Do you know there are many indian news references? Then why many indian news sources have been included here if they are biased? Can you please clarify your statement? Then please remove all the indian news sources. Infact you have specifically included a few Indian news channels who are known to be extremely biased and they are naturally supporting one side of the story. So do you mean indian references supporting your POV are unbiased and indian references against POV are biased.

And who told you western media is not biased? Even amnesty said during the rohingya crisis that the Western media is not covering the story of another oppressed community in Myanmar. The page contains many references from Al Jazira. Historically thay have always supported the Islamic cause. Truly independent I suppose? Not only that many Islam leaning news agencies like channels from Bangladesh and turkey have also been heavily included. A few days ago I found Rana Ayyub's opinion was shared as an RS. What a joke! I regret pointing it out. People should see what kind of propaganda is going on in this particular page. Quanta127 (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not that western media is not biased, but they are not a party. We should not use Indian media for statements of fact. Can you give an example of where we do?Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Western media doesn't have beef in this fight, usually.--Hippeus (talk) 10:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Sir, we Indians refer wiki for everything and we trust articles present in wiki, And refer wiki for almost everything. This is a very sensitive topic, please do not treat this like a joke and blame Hindus completely. You can very well say it’s a Hindu Muslim riot but writing “caused by Hindu mobs “ is a great injustice unless it’s acknowledged by Supreme Court of India. I have sever complain on this line only. It’s my humble request to look into this matter. I don’t want to blame someone at this point, it’s too early to say as this is sub judicial at this point. Maheshbrahma (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source stating the Supreme Court of India's views, please present it. Yes, this is a sensitive topic; that is exactly why, as has already been explained to you, that this article reports only what is reported in neutral reliable sources that have no conflict of interest in this matter. The editorial policies of Wikipedia have nothing to do with avoiding offense for the benefit of specific groups of people. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Highly biased article and has not been updated with latest developments. Request Admin to take note of facts
It is quite evident that this article has been created to project the riots as being planned by the majority community by selectively picking sources that are biased and have drawn conclusions before the case was thoroughly investigated. Also as per latest news reports available on all major Indian news sites on 03rd August 2020, AAP councillor Tahir Hussain has confessed his role in planning the riots but the article makes no mention of that. Please see below articles from top newspapers to verify facts that I have mentioned:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-says-police/articleshow/77322934.cms https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075 https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/aug/03/tahir-hussain-admits-his-involvement-in-northeast-delhi-riots-police-interrogation-report-2178566.html

Requesting administrators to take serious note of this biased article and update the information with facts and latest developments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightenment and Truth (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC) — Enlightenment and Truth (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please examine the numerous previous discussions on this topic. The supposed confession is dubious at best(supposedly overheard by a rogue officer) and made without benefit of legal counsel(who would have advised him to not confess) and where his legal counsel said he hasn't. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state and does not draw or offer conclusions on its own, that's for the reader to decide. Indian news sources all have too much of a stake in this matter, a conflict between two ancient religions with passionate supporters that have difficulty getting along, so we are relying on outside independent sources.  331dot (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And its not even admissible in court.Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Caused by section is incomplete
Why is the role of Radical Islam and the overtures of a Islam+communist block in creating anarchy and panic in the country downplayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.134.163 (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Because independent third party RS have not considered it significant (see wp:undue).Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Useful source
This is just out from the BBC; seems useful. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As is this one Tanyasingh (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those links. By a consensus of many months ago, we are only using international third-party newspapers (or news organizations such as ABC (US and AU), CBS, NBC, CBC, NPR, PBS, BBC, DW) with correspondents in India. BBC is of course usually RS, but not for this page and t BBC would be OK, but this article doesn't really have a byline.  We should perhaps wait.  Al Jazeera is not for reasons explained in a section I had created of the RSs.  I did a quick check (NYTimes, WaPO, LATimes, SF Chronicle, WSJ, Independent, Times London, and Le Monde) for stories after April 1.  (The Amnesty story is new, so I will check again in a day or two.)  What I found was (a) an opinion column in WaPo by Rana Ayub, which of course we cannot use (b) the NYTimes Story India Rounds Up Critics Under Shadow of Virus Crisis, Activists Say   By Sameer Yasir and Kai Schultz July 19, 2020 New York Times.  There was nothing else in those newspapers.  I did not check the Guardian, but that does not require a subscription. There was also a story: Inde : un éditeur accusé de censure après l'annulation d'un livre, about a book on the Delhi riots, which the publisher withdrew allegedly under pressure.  That website does not qualify as an RS for this page, but the story might appear in the RSs  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also an AP report without a byline (carried now by the NYTimes Amnesty Says India Police Violated Rights in Religious Riots but that too is not an RS. (AP needs to have a byline and to be carried by a few of the RSs)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disqualifying the BBC doesn't sit right with me, and as far as I'm aware, they do have correspondents; are we disallowing them because it's they're not a newspaper? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot what we had agreed to. (Scratched and corrected above). BBC is OK, but this report does not really have a byline, a problem with immediate media reactions.  We have used articles by their regular India reporter Soutik Biswas.  I'm sure a BBC report with the byline of a reporter in India will appear soon.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * PS He writes the print articles (even if they don't appear in hard copy) that are RS. She who has done some kind of analysis in the link above is their international news reporter in India; she is not RS for this article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * the Al Jazeera article mentions that, "Deadly violence broke out in February after weeks-long peaceful sit-in protests by Muslims in northeast Delhi against a controversial new citizenship law were targeted by Hindu nationalist mobs". So in the first paragraph of the article, can you change "Hindu" to "Hindu nationalist"; because otherwise, it is giving a negative connotation to all Hindus. I mentioned this before to in archive 14, but it didn't help. Ritwik.m07 (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It doesn't imply anything about all Hindus, it refers only to the "Hindu mobs attacking Muslims". And we aren't using Al Jazeera as a source here. They may well be "Hindu nationalist mobs" but the sources don't say that. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * These two sources (source1 and source2) mentions the role of "Hindu nationalist mobs". Is it enough? Ritwik.m07 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of those sources refer to "Hindu mobs", just like this article does. Both sources use the term "nationalist" in a somewhat different context. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot all about this, but an AP story did appear written by Emily Schmall of AP and carried with her byline by the Washington Post, Seattle Times, Toronto Star, among others, and dated August 28, 2020. It must have appeared a few hours later, and may or may not be the same story. In any case, it is an acceptable source for this page. As we have favored American and UK sources more, I'm citing it to the Toronto Star:. pinging  All the best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't refer to "Hindu nationalist mobs" either, just "Hindu mobs". Anyway, it's a good source to reinforce what's already there. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Question about edits by disappearing editors
Vanished user 278d8b9e769f74365327e651fab9a44b and Renamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 together account for ~43% of the page content, yet their contributions cannot be questioned or discussed because they've gone AWOL after starting a highly biased page. Their contributions should be open to discussion and the page should be opened up to more editors to help preserve a more balanced view instead of pushing a one-sided narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.134.163 (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Users that have vanished are not "AWOL" so much as they are retired from the project and wished to remove as much of their identity as possible. If you have specific changes that you want to see, please make a formal edit request detailing those changes, and offer any independent reliable sources to support them.  I would urge you to review the numerous prior discussions on the subject of changes to this article above and in the archives. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state.  As sources in India seem to have too much skin in the game, we are trying to use sources from outside of India. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; every source has biases.  We present the sources for readers to judge for themselves as to bias.  We also have a Biographies of Living Persons policy governing edits about living people- be aware of this before posting things that suggest people are guilty of crimes before a trial in a court of law(such as alleged confessions). 331dot (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Content writers being absent does not mean we cannot alter their content.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Anybody's contributions are open to discussion, regardless of whether the contributors are still here. So, are you going to discuss specific contributions that are present in the article today? Do you even care about improving this article, or are you just here to complain that your personal biases aren't being confirmed by the reliable sources presented? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

SlaterSteven FIRs can be treated as accusations. Not Chargesheets.
SlaterSteven- FIRs can be frivulous. In this case, There are multiple chargesheets filed by Delhi Police in the court for Conspiracy and Criminal mobilizing of Islamic Mobs against Tahir Hussain, Faisal Farooq. You claim they are not facts and want to only quote from a carefully curated list of Left leaning publications and there is a concerted effort to rollback all the edits that do not suit your narrative. This article is an attempt to revise the facts of the Delhi Riots to suit an agenda, not an unbiased, holistic view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.134.163 (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating prior arguments here. The reasons things are the way they are have been discussed to death above.  If you want to go and tell the world the version of events you choose to believe, you may do so on social media.  331dot (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Or complain to those "Left leaning publications".Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Independent third party RS
SlaterSteven - Can you please elaborate the facts provided by the "independent third party RS" that is the reason for the current caused by? SlaterSteven claims that "independent third party RS" have influenced the information in the caused by section whereas the facts of the law enforcement agencies in India completely contradict this. Can you please elaborate the sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.5.134.163 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The ones we use, you can see them in the article. As to law enforcement agencies, they would violate wp:primary and possibly wp:crime, accusations are not facts.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * "The facts of the law enforcement agencies completely contradict this". How so? What facts? When are you going to present a neutral reliable source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Law enforcement agencies don't deal in facts, they deal in accusations, allegations, and enforcement. I suggest you cease your needless complaints and instead start offering up real suggestions for improvements backed up by reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2020
This full article is false. Muslims attacked Hindus. Chargesheet by police given to court all attackers were from Muslim community Wild Hawk3077 (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See virtually all the talk page above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * . This is not an edit request, no specific change has been suggested, and no reliable sources independent of the topic have been offered. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2020
Change - "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." To - "The Delhi riots 2020 was caused because (redacted per WP:BLP) muslims attacked the Hindus in the area and murdered/assaulted dozens of Hindus." Trinathmishraofficial (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:. Please provide reliable sources supporting the change you want to make, and then discuss to reach consensus in favour of the change before making a new edit request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Misleading article
Highly biased article, painting the hindus as the main villains and showing musalman population as the victim, whereas the major dammage and vandalism was done by the Muslim side. Not a religious debate but i feel like the article should have been a bit more unbiased and showed the true chronology of events Nishantsingh3001 (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If you have suggestions for specific changes, please offer them along with independent reliable sources to support them. Please review some of the numerous prior discussions with similar concerns as you first, as it's likely this has been discussed already. This is a dispute with passionate supporters on each side, with views based in ancient religions that have difficulty getting along. We will not solve it here. 331dot (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded, RS say this, we repeat it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree the entire wiki page is filled with cherry picked incedents to support a groups pov GhostIn$hell (talk) 06:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please offer specific changes you feel are needed, along with independent reliable sources to support them, keeping in mind past discussions on this topic. 331dot (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These repeated "it's biased" interjections are getting old. We need sources.--Hippeus (talk) 11:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We need a FAQ we can just point to, and maybe full page protection.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Hail Lord Rama is biased translation for Jai shree Ram.
How "Jai shree Ram" translated as "Hail Lord Ram". Biased translation. Sounds similar to "Hail Hitler". Please discuss and hopefully fix this biased translation. Wikipedia is literally comparing Rama to Hitler! -- Eatcha 10:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not comparing Rama to Hitler. I think that has to be one of the the most ridiculous things I've read on Wikipedia in 10 years. Hail Hitler also sounds like Hail Mary... is Wikipedia comparing Hitler to Mary? —Melbourne<b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you see the context of the article? What reminds you when you hear "Hail ..." And "Killing based on religion and ...".

The translation is just incorrect and with the context of the article "religious killings by nationalists". Eatcha 10:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * fascinating -- these are all your connections that you're making. Please don't assume that's the case for everybody else. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Now BBC is the highest authority for translating Hindi. How can a British organization decide the translation of Indian words? Try Google translator, Bing translation or lookup in your reliable British Oxford dictionary. The translation is just incorrect. Am I allowed to provide Indian sources or will they be considered biased in favour of British broadcasting corp. Eatcha 11:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only is the BBC considered a reliable source, but translating anything to English by an authoritative English source makes sense to me. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 11:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Translating "anything"? Isn't "anything" supposed to Hindi here, an Indian language. BBC, a British public broadcaster is reliable but CGTN/DW/DD/RT/PTR etc are considered biased sources and sometimes termed as government propaganda. Eatcha 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Criticism of the BBC and BBC controversies. In my opinion BBC is not only unreliable but heavily biased. Two Wikipedia pages for controversy and criticism. Hail BBC! -- Eatcha 11:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:rs and wp:RSP, if you wish to overturn this take it to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of rabbit holes. ;) -- Eatcha 13:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its called policy, if you do not wish to do things how we do them...Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you provide a better translation with links to reliable sources? Regards, TryKid&thinsp;<sup style="white-space:nowrap;">[dubious – discuss] 11:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How about https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/13/jai-shri-ram-india-hindi/ ? Foreign policy is reliable? -- Eatcha 11:58, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We also have [], I suspect many more.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It also sounds similar to Hail to the Chief.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As some of the source I found make clear, it in fact has a number of meanings, three appears to be no definitive one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added more than 20 sources in the collapesd black-box. Please take your time to verify these soucres. :) -- Eatcha 13:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fix your title. It's actually hi to en. :) -- Eatcha 13:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Opinions

 * Support changing this biased translation which is comparing Rama with a mass murderer like Hitler. In Hindi language "Jai shree Ram" is would be literally translated to "Victory to Lord Rama". Jai = victory, shree = Lord/respected person, Ram = Name of Rama in Hindi language. -- Eatcha 10:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it can also mean "Glory to Lord Rama", Also RS say "Hail Lord Ram" is a correct translation [], and the justification for change is spurious at best.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose aside from this obviously being bit of a reach, "Hail Lord Ram" is the translation per the BBC. Because someone, somehow, is offended by its translation is not an adequate reason for its removal. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 10:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am a Hindi speaker. I think it's a reasonable translation and it has adequate support from sources. "Glory to Lord Ram" is also fine, but if there is to be a change, I would like to see some authoritative interpretation or textual support of that translation. I don't think a change is warranted simply because someone is offended by the making tenuous connections that they, themselves, making to this translation.  Naushervan (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh. Much ado about nothing. "Hail", "Victory to", or "Glory to" &mdash; it's splitting hairs. Being offended isn't a valid reason to change. If there's a preponderance of reliable sources supporting one particular translation, that's what should be used. If the sources all use equally good translations, we just pick one, as has been done already. Nothing to see here. Move on. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Indifferent "Jai" is a Hindi origin term which is common in all sorts of English publications. I think it is common enough to be either part of Indian English or at least Hinglish. I hear Jai Hind (wiki article on the phrase) for all sorts of Indian events and phrases like Jai Maharashtra (wiki article on company) for various specific celebrations. There is not a pure English translation for this concept but in American English I think the closest translation is "Viva", as in Viva la revolución, which is a French or Spanish phrase which English adopted. I suppose it would be silly to translate this to "Viva Rama" but I think that is closer to the actual meaning than "hail" or "glory to". I do not see either of those two options as offensive, though.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  20:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose From the Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary, compiled by R. S. McGregor, Oxford University Press, 1993. The Hindi (or Sanskrit) word जय (jai, jaya) has two forms: (a) the feminine noun meaning "victory" and (b) the interjection meaning "Long live!" or Hail (to की) Examples: जय गोपाल​ (Jai Gopal) Hail to Gopal (Krishna) (page 360); also श्री (śri, shri, shree): Honourific prefix to the name (of a male deity, a man, a sacred place) example: श्री कृष्ण (Shree/Shri Krishna): Lord Krishna (page 958)
 * If that is not good enough, here is: Dasa, Syamasundara (1965–1975) Hindi sabdasagara. Navina samskarana. Kasi (Varanasi): Nagari Pracarini Sabha, "the largest monolingual dictionary of Hindi" (see description of the dictionary here) hosted at the Digital Dictionaries of South Asia site at the University of Chicago. For jaya, please see entry 6 here and for its relevant translation using Google Translate (which is fairly accurate in this instance) see [https://translate.google.com/#view=home&op=translate&sl=hi&tl=en&text=%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7%E2%80%94%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%A4%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%81%20'%E0%A4%9C%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%A4'%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A5%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%97%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88%20%E0%A5%A4%0A%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B7%E2%80%94%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A4%20%E0%A4%87%E0%A4%B8%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A4%AC%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%97%20%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%93%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B8%E0%A5%82%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A4%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AF%E0%A5%87%20%E0%A4%AD%E0%A5%80%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88%20%E0%A4%94%E0%A4%B0%20%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%82%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%81%E0%A4%9B%20%E0%A4%AF%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%A8%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B5%20%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B2%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BE%20%E0%A4%B9%E0%A5%88%20%E0%A5%A4%0A%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%8B%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2%20%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%B6%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%95%E0%A5%83%E0%A4%B7%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A3%20%E0%A5%A4%20%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%AF%20%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AE%2C%20%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%20(%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%A8%20%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%9A%E0%A4%A8) the box on the right here], which says, "Special - In Sanskrit, the word Jai is masculine, but in the meaning of 'victory' in Hindi, it is used in only in female. Apart from special blessings, this word is also used to indicate the elation of the deities and in which there is some sense of solicitation. Jai Gopal Long live Shri Krishna . Jai Ram, etc. (salutation) (Two errors: pulling == masculine; Adi = etc.)  So, summing up: the "Jai" in "Jai Shree Ram" has the meaning of the interjection, not the female noun, and the full expression means: "Long live or Hail Lord Rama!" not "Victory to ..." There is no doubt about this.  I request now that this discussion be closed expeditiously.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me suggest politely that beyond providing a certain perverse entertainment value persistingly promoting amateurish nonsense on Wikipedia is generally considered disruptive. Someone has to be blunt with you, so it better be me.  I hope this is clear.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Indifferent. Hail is a proper English word, I don't see it as strongly Hitler related (while Heil may be Hitler associated in English). It could be translated different, but it's not a big deal.--Hippeus (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2020
Change "...chiefly caused by Hindu mobs attacking Muslim." to "...which was admittedly pre-planned by Muslim left-wing activists."

This is not only is an unproven fact but FALSE. Sources: https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/tahir-hussain-admits-to-planning-north-east-delhi-riots-police-report/story-uruyQ6ew8t3K9V5uzLCAgL.html https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-riots-planned-to-discedit-india-during-trump-visit-delhi-police-1700702-2020-07-15

Alternate suggestion : Remove "...chiefly caused by Hindu mobs attacking Muslim." Aduser99 (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ See numerous other requests for this change in prior discussions. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And We are not using Indian sources, for obvious reasons. "Hindustan Times" in particular has a conflict of interest here. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Needs mention of premeditated Rioting by a nexus of Leftist-Islamist Fundamentalists at the behest of Tahir Hussain, Umar Khalid and co.
There is mounting evidence about the role of Aam Aadmi Party's Tahir Hussain, Son of Ex-SIMI(An Organization banned for links to Islamic Terror Outfits like Indian Mujahideen.) Leader and JNU student Umar Khalid ,Khalid Saifi among others who instigated a mob of Islamic Fundamentalists, in Muslim-majority areas like Chand Bagh to riot in the capital to coincide with the Donald Trump visit, The admission of this conspiracy is seen in Umar Khalid's Amravati Speech on Feb 17th, a full week before the US Presidential visit to India. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-riots-planned-to-discedit-india-during-trump-visit-delhi-police-1700702-2020-07-15 The article needs to be updated to include these facts, instead of lying that Hindu Mobs attacked Muslims, when the reverse seems to be the case, looking at the irrefutable evidence shaping up in the investigation.
 * Please read the talk page, we have discussed this over and over again.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ Eatcha 06:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ —  San ska ri  Hangout 08:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean its done, when?Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The edit summary of that edit says "support" so I think they are simply expressing support of the OP. 331dot (talk) 08:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahh, OK.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they're still topic banned? —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 08:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We are not "lying" or telling the truth; we are simply reporting what independent reliable sources are stating. Since most news organizations in India have a dog in the fight and are not independent of this issue, we aren't using them. If you disagree with what the sources are saying, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Why you have used “We”? Wikipedia is collaboration of independent contributors from reliable sources. Can you provide the names that forms “We”? 2. Can you write a topic and list the name of Indian Media whom you have accused as not independent and grossly used the term “most” thus it will be transparent for all and any reference to those across Wikipedia should be removed? If not then kindly avoid this opinion as Wikipedia is not a place for opinions rather facts from sources? 3. The tone of this article appears heavily opinionated and despite facts available that people from Hindu and Muslim indulged in this riots but it has been written with 2 references and both articles are written by Muslim authors and appears more like opinion rather report. 4. This article has brought a big disgrace to Wikipedia for being biased article as you can compare it with Bengaluru Riots caused by only Muslim mobs but the tone is different. So what next? Bring transparency and improve as many has suggested above with proper references <BR><B>Topic 1:</B> Use alleged for Kapil Mishra and Tahir Hussain<BR><B>Topic 2:</B> Riots caused by fringe elements from Hindu and Muslim<BR>

[PS: I have read all arguments including many from the archive so please refrain from copy-paste reply of discussed already read above] Or alternatively criticise suggestion and let the world keep judging the deteriorating quality of Indian subcontinent pages to the point where Wikipedia will lose it’s relevance. If my suggestion seems biased then take a poll on quality of Delhi Riots 2020 Wikipedia page to know the facts and will accept the verdict. I hope “We” can take this critic positively and constructively for keeping Wikipedia unbiased.
 * "We" refers to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not claim to be unbiased, as every person has biases; the sources for information are provided so readers can judge bias and other things for themselves, and make determinations themselves.  Most of what people are claiming as "facts" are not so(such as the unverified report from a rogue officer of a confession without legal counsel, that if placed here would violate WP:BLP). 331dot (talk) 09:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We use alleged for anyone who has been accused of something but it has not been tested in a court of law. They are innocent until Proven guilty.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree about the disgrace. Anti-Wikipedia campaigns by BJP workers are in full swing.
 * But why do you think Bangalore riots article is biased in favour of rioters? I've infact uploaded the images (montage) to make it appear more neutral. -- Eatcha 17:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not about the Bangalore riots.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

No use for anyone raising neutrality viewpoint, you are likely to be banned if you raise any point. So 'WE' already is decide Sachin.cba (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they are not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Delhi Riots: No Recorded Confession by Tahir Hussain, Say Police"
"Delhi Police’s Crime Branch has said that no confession of suspended Aam Aadmi Party councillor Tahir Hussain has been recorded in connection with his alleged involvement in Delhi Riots.

The police has made this disclosure in response to a Right to Information query filed by Nilim Dutta, chairman of the Unified People’s Movement."

"Statement under Section 164 of CrPC was not recorded,” said the response submitted by Joy Tirkey, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crime) cum Public Information Officer.

IMHO one-off editors making false claims should simply be ignored/reverted. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Or the page protected?Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that article will stop anyone. This may be splitting hairs, but... Nobody said he didn't confess. The police said only that no confession was recorded. A confession may still have been witnessed. Even so, the full article does give some insight into the unreliability of Indian news sources like Times of India when covering this event. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if it did say it they would ignore it. Its why I say we need full protection.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Page protection
Are we going to need it back?Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That did not take long.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I was about to make it indef ECP but we'll go with the March 2021 expiration that RegentsPark set. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it will be long enough, at least the court case will be over.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request
Can someone: 45.251.33.196 (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Add the ECP icon?
 * 2) Decapitalise the "series" in the short description as the S should not be capitalised?
 * Yes check.svg Done Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)