Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 17

Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles)
"POV-embattled," by the way, means battlements of POV dot, litter, even crisscross the topic. This is long, but please bear with me. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC) The lead which is locked in the article right now is a summary of the topic, not the main body. It has  due weight and overall reliability. In Stage 1, we have cited and summarized content from newspapers:
 * Stage 1:
 * (a) which have correspondents based in India.
 * (b) whose articles (which are of interest to us) have bylines (i.e. the name of the correspondents shows up below the title of their story) and
 * (c) which are published in liberal democracies where there is no significant POV around this issue. (i.e. South Asian newspapers have been ruled out at this stage.)

We have cited from: NYTimes, Washington Post, Independent, Guardian, Times (London), and Le Monde. (There are obviously others as well, which we did not use. I will make a list elsewhere of newspapers which have correspondents based in India.)

By definition, the lead will not have all the notable details. The sources it cites may not have all the notable details either, because their main audience (an international one) may not be conversant with, or generally interested in, all local details. For expansion, therefore, you will need to look at the reliable high-quality Indian sources whose perspectives match the one in the lead, which now serves as a template of DUE.

In my view, for recent Indian events just six national newspapers in India are enough for fleshing out the details: "The Statesman (Kolkata, founded 1875/1817), The Hindu (Chennai, founded 1878), The Free Press Journal (Mumbai, founded 1928), The Indian Express (Delhi, founded 1933), Deccan Chronicle (Hyderabad, founded 1938), and The Telegraph (Kolkata) (founded 1982)"
 * Stage 2:


 * Question: Why bother to write such a lead in the first place?
 * Answer: Because if we don't, we will not have a DUE summary of the topic against which to measure the neutrality of our additions. Later, when a topic becomes older, text-books, other encyclopedias, reviews of literature, and so forth, become available for determining DUE, but for now, there is nothing else. Also, as the lead is what people read first, and sometimes, they read no further: it is important for it to be comprehensive and neutral, especially when the rest of the article is not.
 * Question: Why start with only these six Indian newspapers?
 * Answer: Because these newspapers have old traditions of excellence and independence. As print newspapers based in different regions of India, they necessarily have to summarize—in the multi-ethnic Indian context—in a manner that local or digital newspapers do not.

As an example, consider the "peace marches" in the New York Times story, which have been paraphrased in the lead as: "After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu politicians paraded alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims."

There are stories about one peace march on February 29 in:
 * this Deccan Chronicle story (with byline, )
 * this Hindu story (with byline, )
 * this Indian Express story (with byline )
 * this Statesman story (by their web desk, not OK)
 * The Telegraph (Kolkata) Press Trust of India (PTI) feed, (not OK)
 * The Telegraph (Kolkata) signed article by Pheroze Vincent, printed two days later

These should, therefore, be used to further expand the topic of peace marches, at least one peace march. Similarly, determining whether there were other marches, before or after, will require examining these sources for other dates.


 * Stage 3: After the main body is fleshed out in such fashion, the lead should be rewritten by summing up the main body. No footnotes, let alone extended quotes, will then be required in the lead unless a statement is highly controversial. But for now, they are essential.

In the language of artificial intelligence, the stages are 1: The lead is written using sources that are relatively low-res (or high-level (OED: high-level: relating to or concerned with a subject, system, or phenomenon as a whole, rather than its particular details.), or macro-level). 2. The main body is fleshed out using sources that are high-res (low-level, micro-level), but in keeping with the content of stage 1 (i.e. DUE). 3. The lead is rewritten as a low-res/high-level version of the main body.

Good luck, Pinging also:  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though you haven't pinged me, I have been keeping this talk page in my watchlist. You did very well! Thank you, . -- KartikeyaS (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's List of foreign newspapers with correspondents in India
Dear Pinging also: Collapsed below is a list I had mentioned above. It is much bigger than I had thought, and there are still some (Haarets, Jerusalem Post, in Israel, South African newspapers) which I have not examined. Still, used judiciously, it may prove useful in the future. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * PS I have not added the links/urls for newspapers that rigorously require a subscription, only the titles of the stories. (It is easier to search the title on Google.) If someone wants small blurbs from them, I'm happy to provide them.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

North America

 * The New York Times. (Subscrip. Req.) Jeffrey Gettleman (South Asia bureau chief); Maria Abi-Habib; Kai Shultz; Hari Kumar, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * New Delhi Streets Turn Into Battleground, Hindus vs. Muslims" February 25, Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * As New Delhi Violence Rages for 3rd Day, Modi Urges Calm February 26, Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * The Roots of the Delhi Riots: A Fiery Speech and an Ultimatum, Jeffrey Gettleman, Suhasini Raj and Sameer Yasir
 * As New Delhi Counts the Dead, Questions Swirl About Police Response, February 27, by Jeffrey Gettleman and Suhasini Raj, Photographs by Atul Loke
 * Indian Police Sweep Through Riot Zone, Making More Arrests, February 28,  Sameer Yasir and Suhasini Raj, Photographs by Atul Loke
 * In India, Modi’s Policies Have Lit a Fuse, March 1, By Jeffrey Gettleman and Maria Abi-Habib
 * Violence in India Threatens Its Global Ambitions, March 5, by Maria Abi-Habib
 * How Delhi’s Police Turned Against Muslims, March 12, By Jeffrey Gettleman, Sameer Yasir, Suhasini Raj and Hari Kumar, Photographs by Atul Loke


 * The Washington Post. (Subscrip. Req.) Joana Slater (India bureau chief), Neha Masih, Tania Dutta
 * "Worst communal violence in Delhi in decades leaves 17 dead as Trump visits India," February 25, by Slater, Masih, and Dutta
 * "Death toll passes 30 in Delhi violence as Modi issues plea for calm," February 26, Slater, Masih.
 * "Criticism of police grows after mob violence kills nearly 40 in India’s capital," February 27, by Slater
 * "Criticism of police grows after mob violence kills nearly 40 in India’s capital," February 27, Slater
 * "What Delhi’s worst communal violence in decades means for Modi’s India," March 2, Slater and Masih


 * The Wall Street Journal Bill Spindle (South Asia bureau chief); Vibhuti Agarwal (Commodities Reporter); Krishna Pokharel (Reporter)
 * "India’s Ruling Party, Government Slammed Over Delhi Violence," (subscription required; Pokharel, Agarwal, Spindle, February 26)
 * "India Begins Probe of Clashes That Left 38 Dead," (subscription required; Agarwal, Spindle, February 27)


 * The Christian Science Monitor (Subscrip. Not Req.) An American newspaper with a notable record of international reporting. Farhad Shah, India contributor
 * After Delhi’s burst of violence, a Muslim artist takes stock, March 5, 2020, Farhad Shah
 * As Delhi riot wounds heal, neighbors look for ‘the way ahead’, March 10, 2020 by Sarita Santoshini


 * Associated Press (Subscrip. Not Req.)
 * Correspondents: Emily Schmall (South Asia correspondent) Sheikh Saaliq, Ashok Sharma
 * Stories carried with byline by:
 * Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), United States ("Death toll rises to 22 from New Delhi protests over new citizenship law," February 26, Sheikh Saaliq and Emily Schmall)
 * Sometimes the same article is carried with bylines by some newspapers and without by others:
 * Philadelphia Inquirer
 * Chicago Tribuine
 * San Fransico Chronicle (Subscrip. Req.)
 * Baltimore Sun
 * Stories carried without byline by:
 * Los Angeles Times (Subscrip. Req.)


 * Toronto Star does not have a correspondent in Delhi, and generally uses AP
 * Toronto Star ("Scars of violence haunt India’s capital after deadly riots," February 27, by Emily Schmall and Sheikh Saaliq
 * Toronto Star ("Attacks on Indian journalists highlight growing intolerance," March 1, by Emily Schmall, March 1)
 * Toronto Star ("India’s riot toll rises to 46 as capital remains on edge," March 2, by Sheikh Saaliq, March 2
 * Toronto Star ("Opposition blames gov’t for New Delhi rioting that killed 52," March 11, by Ashok Sharma


 * 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.
 * Indian state ordered to take down billboards used to publicly identify protesters, March 9, Saurabh Sharma, Reuters.
 * Opposition demands minister’s resignation, judicial probe after deadly New Delhi rioting, March 11, by Ashok Sharma, Associate Press News


 * National Public Radio, (Subscrip. Not Req.) Lauren Frayer, India correspondent, based in Mumbai.
 * As President Trump Left India's Capital, Hindu-Muslim Riots Flared, February 26, Lauren Frayer, audio with transcript, heard on Morning Edition
 * In New Delhi, Days Of Deadly Violence And Riots, February 26, by Laurel Wamsley and Lauren Frayer,
 * Police In New Delhi Accused Of Failing To Protect Muslims, March 6, audio with transcript, by Lauren Frayer.
 * Delhi Riots Aftermath: 'How Do You Explain Such Violence?', March 7, by Lauren Frayer.


 * 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

United Kingdom and Ireland

 * The Times (Subscrip. Req.) Hugh Tomlinson, South Asia correspondent, based in Delhi; Saurabh Sharma, Delhi
 * "Donald Trump’s visit to India marred by deadly violence against Muslims," February 26, by Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma
 * "Hindu mobs threaten to purge Delhi of Muslims," February 27, Hugh Tomlinson
 * "Heroes rise in a city torn apart by riots," March 3, Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma
 * "Anti-Modi protesters named on billboards," March 11, Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma
 * "Anti-Modi protesters ordered to sign ‘good behaviour’ pledge," March 17, Hugh Tomlinson and Saurabh Sharma


 * 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
 * Inside Delhi: beaten, lynched and burnt alive, March 1, 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 (free-lance journalist)
 * 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.
 * " ‘Targeted for being Muslim’: Inside the mosque burnt by rioters in worst Delhi violence for decades," February 26, by Adam Withnall
 * "Delhi riots: Death toll rises to 27 with mosque set on fire in deadliest violence in capital in decades," February 26, by Adam Withnall.
 * "Delhi riots: Dust settles after worst religious violence in decades as locals demand accountability," February 27, by Adam Withnall.
 * "UN human rights chief launches unprecedented legal action against Indian government over citizenship protests," March 3, by Adam Withnall
 * "Delhi riots: Violence that killed 53 in Indian capital ‘was anti-Muslim pogrom’, says top expert," March 7, by Adam Withnall
 * "The betrayal felt in the still-recovering areas hit by the Delhi riots makes coronavirus more of a threat," March 15, Pyall Dhar
 * "Why an Islamic gathering in Delhi has taken centre stage in India’s coronavirus debate," March 31, Adam Withnall


 * Financial Times, (Subscrip. Req.) Amy Kazmin South Asia Bureau Chief, based in Delhi; Stephanie Findlay, South Asia correspondent.
 * "New Delhi religious riots claim 17 lives in two days of violence," February 25, by Amy Kazmin
 * "Thousands of paramilitary police deployed in New Delhi after riots," February 26, by Amy Kazmin and Stephanie Findlay
 * "Narendra Modi woos world leaders in a city haunted by violence," February 26, by Amy Kazmin
 * "India riots: ‘We were attacked because we are Muslim’," February 28, by Stephanie Findlay and Amy Kazmin


 * Economist (Subscrip. Req.) (does not have bylines by tradition, only the location of the reporter)
 * A tale of two neighbourhoods: Donald Trump and Narendra Modi hug as Delhi burns, February 27, 2020, Delhi
 * First the mob, then the law: Victims of rioting in India are bashed by the police and courts, too, March 12, Delhi


 * The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), (Subscrip. Not Req.) Soutik Biswas, India correspondent
 * Why Delhi violence has echoes of the Gujarat riots, February 26, Soutik Biswas
 * Delhi riots: How Muslims' homes were targeted and burnt, March 4, 2020, Soutik Biswas.


 * Reuters
 * "More than a dozen killed, hundreds injured as New Delhi riots overshadow Trump visit," February 25, Devjyot Ghosal, Manoj Kumar, New Delhi
 * "A mob out for blood: India's protests pit Hindus against Muslims," February 26, Danish Siddiqui and Devjyot Ghosal, New Delhi
 * "Death toll rises to 32 in religious violence in India's capital," February 27, by Aftab Ahmed, New Delhi
 * "A Delhi neighborhood divided by a highway and now hatred," February 27, by Aftab Ahmed, New Delhi
 * "Indian lawmakers scuffle over citizenship riots where 41 died," March 2 by Alisdair Pal and Aftab Ahmed, New Delhi
 * "More 'apartheid cities' seen in India after deadly Delhi riots," March 5, by Rina Chandran
 * "Delhi's displaced scrape a living after deadly riots," March 4, Alisdair Pal and Devjyot Ghosal, New Delhi


 * Irish Times, (Subscrip. Not Req.) Rahul Bedi, Contributor, New Delhi
 * Thirteen killed, 150 injured in riots in Indian capital Delhi, February 25, Rahul Bedi
 * At least 27 dead and hundreds injured in violent clashes in India, February 26, Rahul Bedi
 * Fear and suspicion in Delhi after worst sectarian violence in decades, February 28, Rahul Bedi

Europe

 * Le Monde, (Subscrip. Req.) Sophie Landrin, India correspondent
 * "Trump célèbre la tolérance indienne quand des heurts intercommunautaires embrasent New Delhi," ("Trump celebrates Indian tolerance when cross-community clashes set fire to New Delhi") 25 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
 * "Inde : New Delhi en proie à de violents conflits intercommunautaires" ("India: New Delhi plagued by violent inter-community conflicts"), 26 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
 * "A New Delhi, trois jours de terreur" ("In New Delhi, three days of terror"), 27 février 2020, Sophie Landrin
 * "Attaques contre les musulmans à New Delhi : « J’ai pensé que j’allais mourir »" ("Attacks on Muslims in New Delhi: 'I thought I was going to die' "), 04 mars 2020, Sophie Landrin


 * Deutsche Welle
 * Indian Muslims fear for their lives after sectarian riots grip New Delhi, February 27, Murali Krishnan, New Delhi
 * Delhi riots: Victims struggle to rebuild their lives, March 20, 2020, Syamantak Ghosh, New Delhi

Asia and Australia

 * Strait Times, (Subscrip. Req.) Singapore, Debarshi Dasgupta, India Correspondent
 * 10 dead in Delhi in violent protests against controversial citizenship law, in the midst of Trump's visit, February 25, 2020, Debarshi Dasgupta
 * 13 killed in violent clashes in Delhi amid Trump's visit, February 26, Debarshi Dasgupta
 * Social media plays key role as witness to New Delhi communal riots, February 26, 2020, Debarshi Dasgupta
 * Ravaged by hate: Heart-rending stories in wake of communal violence in Delhi, March 1, 2020, Debarshi Dasgupta
 * Delhi's riot-displaced pour into relief camps, March 8, 2020, Debarshi Dasgupta
 * ISIS 'trying to exploit' growing Hindu-Muslim tensions in India, March 13, 2020, Debarshi Dasgupta


 * South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) Adnan Bhat, India Correspondent
 * In Modi’s India, families of Muslims killed by Hindu mobs lose hope for justice. March 4, 2020, Adnan Bhat.


 * Sydney Morning Herald (They no longer seem to have a correspondent in Delhi)
 * Bloodshed after tensions erupt on Delhi's unfashionable fringe, by Matt Wade, Senior Economics Editor.
 * Deadly riots in India overshadow Donald Trump's visit, Reuters Feed, See the UK section


 * The Australian, generally carries articles from The Times, London. (Hugh Tomlinson, See above.)
 * The Age Melbourne, Ashok Sharma (AP)
 * Death toll rises from Delhi riots during Trump trip, Ashok Sharma, AP feed (see above in North America]


 * Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC Australia), James Oaten, South Asia Correspondent based in Delhi
 * New Delhi riots leave more than 20 dead as unrest over citizenship law spills over during Donald Trump visit (No byline, but based mostly on Oaten's reporting; very likely, there was no time to write an article.), February 26, 2020

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Vote

 * Support
 * Sounds good, I have already used a couple of these for the "Aftermath". SerChevalerie (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

OI FOWLER NOOOOO!! NedFausa (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * Please note: in registering my opposition, I used the verbatim wording prescribed here. If I was misled, please advise. NedFausa (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per wp:consensus "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.", you have to actually make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Why only a particular religion (Hinduism) is being targeted?
As per the confession of Tahir Hussain a Municipal Councillor of Delhi he organised the riots in order to and I quote "To teach Hindus a lesson ". Now my complaint is that why only Hindu politicians are being targeted who havent even being convicted while above mentioned person has openly confessed to also killing an intelligence officer it doesn't seem too secular of this website so please edit this page and provide sources because Wikipedia seem to be becoming a fake facts website with only quarter side of story and also on sensitive topics like these which can lead to an outrage (FYi iam an atheist ). Mgs235 (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No one has "openly confessed" to anything; that was a claim from one rogue officer. No religion is being targeted; Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Please review the numerous prior discussion on this issue, as well as the pinned posts above and the WP:BLP policy. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will repeat it, go back over the pages of discussion about this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Delhi riots: 5 persons received Rs 1.61cr for executing conspiracy in riots, alleges chargesheet
https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/delhi-riots-5-persons-received-rs-161cr-for-executing-conspiracy-in-riots-alleges-chargesheet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osbourne06 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC) Deleting copyvio. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Charged and guilty are not the same thing. What do you want to say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Delhi riots: Funds received from Oman, UAE in Jan; police to probe link
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-riots-funds-received-from-oman-uk-in-jan-police-to-probe-link-1697496-2020-07-06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osbourne06 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have just posted a link; if you are proposing an edit, please describe the edit you would like to see. Note that the biographies of living persons policy must be strictly adhered to in that we cannot post information about persons committing crimes unless they have been convicted in a court of the same. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Charged and guilty are not the same thing. What do you want to say?Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on the inclusion of leading social media platform Facebook's role in the event
Hi,

The following input is suggested to be included in the article based on the recent developments.


 * Alleged laxity in the social media platform policy execution

A former Facebook employee Mark S Luckie who served various core teams of the social media platform deposed before the Committee on Peace and Harmony, headed by Aam Aadmi Party leader Raghav Chadha in November 2020 in the wake of several allegations of culpability of the website. He affirmed that there has been repeated interference by the top officials of the Facebook teams, including their policy heads at the instance of the political parties upon the content moderation teams which has caused eventual compromise in the execution of their own community standards leading to events like these Delhi riots, recent Myanmar genocide and the Sri Lanka Communal violence which could have been easily averted had Facebook acted in a more proactive and prompt manner.

--Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is one source, for what is one persons allegation. Nor am I sure the source is good enough for what is (in effect) a BLP matter. Its a serious allegation. Even if we had better sources it is still only one (ex) workers opinion of a company he no longer works for.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is one former employee giving his views in a government hearing, not a trial. I'm skeptical as well. 331dot (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No idea if this is the same Mark S Luckie [] if it is he was not even working for face book at the time of the riot, he left in 2018.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch! It seems to be the same. From what I gathered, Mark Luckie seems to have left facebook in 2018 ,. Since then he has spoken out in general about certain practices in big tech. I believe the Delhi government invited Mark Luckie as a general expert about social media and not as a "former Facebook employee who was on duty when the riots happened". Regardless, I don't think we need to add this content to the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, also it seems Facebook and other social media get tangled up with so many real world events that it doesn't bear mentioning that much anyway.--Hippeus (talk) 11:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020
173.69.135.117 (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The foundation of Delhi riots was laid by motivated ant CAA protests by Left and Muslim groups. These Riots were timed to coincide with US President Trump's visit to Delhi. There have been multiple reports of funding for anti CAA protests and Delhi Riots was provided by a radical Muslim Group called Popular Front of India (PFI). Later in August 2020 this similar Riot design and mythology was repeated in Bangalore by Muslim Groups, what is now know as Bangalore Riots 2020. There is a very informative book with lot of interviews and documentary evidences written by Ms. Monica Arora ( Lawyer Supreme Court of India), book is called "Delhi Riots 2020: The Untold Story".
 * Please clearly indicate the change you wish to see in the article (e.g., change X to Y) and please provide reliable sources.--RegentsPark (comment) 23:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

RegentsPark https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-violence-over-caa-shahrukh-man-who-aimed-gun-at-unarmed-delhi-cop-in-chilling-video-detained-2185203 https://theprint.in/india/court-rejects-bail-plea-of-shahrukh-pathan-who-pointed-gun-at-police-during-delhi-riots/541410/ https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/nov/11/delhi-riots-bail-pleas-of-man-who-pointed-gun-at-cop-dismissed-2222209.html These are the references to the identity of the man who pointed a gun at police and shot two rounds on 24th February. Please change "a man" to Shahrukh Pathan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.50.81 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have a thread about this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven We have a thread about this where you first asked for references, which i did. then you claimed lack of evidence which is laughable because Sharukh Pathan was caught on camera pointing his gun at a cop and now you are filibustering with wp:consensus. YOu are in violation of NPOV and i hope the other moderators here are not as biased as you are being in the so-called other thread — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.41.247 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I will only discuss this in the above thread, we do not need two separate discussions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

A man, allegedly from the anti-CAA RIots under February 24 has been identified
"A man, allegedly from the anti-CAA riots sounds too vague". He has been arrested and identified as Shahrukh Pathan beyond all doubt from multiple videos recorded at the scene of the crime and he is currently in jail. https://theprint.in/india/court-rejects-bail-plea-of-shahrukh-pathan-who-pointed-gun-at-police-during-delhi-riots/541410/ https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-shahrukh-pathan-who-was-seen-aiming-gun-at-cop-named-in-first-delhi-riots-chargesheet-2823281 https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/who-is-shahrukh-pathan-northeast-delhi-violence-gun-jaffrabad-594672 https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/shahrukh-pathan-gun-pointing-accused-delhi-riots-2020-youtube-video-maujbpur-anti-caa-protest-delhi-police/2007141/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.58.66 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 November 2020
1) The information on the page is misleading and bigoted. Delhi riots 2020 were caused mainly due to Muslim mobs protesting against CAA and NRC act passed by the government, which was in fact scrutinized by Supreme Court of India and deemed fair. I request you to remove the part where Hindu mobs are mentioned as this is completely false information. TruthAndFreedom18 (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC) — TruthAndFreedom18 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please read the voluminous talk page threads above and in archive about this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Timeline:Edit:Ambigious sentence to absolve a criminal
A man allegedly from anti-CAA shot at police in the Timeline seems to be framed intentionally to make it sound ambiguous. THe man's name is Shahrukh Pathan and he was part of a Muslim mob rioting as part of the anti-CAA riots in New Delhi. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/delhi-violence-over-caa-shahrukh-man-who-aimed-gun-at-unarmed-delhi-cop-in-chilling-video-detained-2185203
 * Well that source does not say he was part of the riot, and in fact says the rioters scattered as he opened fire. Also it does not say he shot AT police.Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk) You are not even pretending to be neutral anymore. Did you check the photo of the gun-wielding criminal in the link? Does he look like he was working alone? But, let me give you the benefit of doubt and give you some more links and pretend that this page is not moderated by a bunch of Wiki Fascists.

Please watch this video carefully. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDd20HKmUhg You can see the Muslim man Shahrukh Pathan seperating from a gang of Islamic Stone pelters and pointing his gun at a cop and firing 2 rounds. No sign of NDTV claim that the crowd scattered. Since his name and identity has been ascertained in the link, Please add his name instead of making his identity ambiguous.
 * Please read wp:or, we cannot decide what a source shows. Nor can a picture tell us anything about who is in it, are they wearing "we are Muslims" t-shirts? I also suggest reading wp:npaSlatersteven (talk) 10:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

(talk) https://www.financialexpress.com/india-news/shahrukh-pathan-gun-pointing-accused-delhi-riots-2020-youtube-video-maujbpur-anti-caa-protest-delhi-police/2007141/ Pls tell me about wp:whataboutery now
 * Thats a better source, but I am unsure what you mean by "seems to be framed intentionally to make it sound ambiguous.". Sp what change do you want to make?Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I am talking about a particular sentence which sounds ambiguous in the content under 24 February- with references to [83][84] Since the man's identity and faction has been ascertained beyond doubt, He should be identified as such by his name and affiliation. In Jaffrabad, a man, allegedly linked with the anti-CAA side, opened fire at the police, before being arrested days later in Uttar Pradesh.[83][84] The man's identity has been ascertained beyond doubt and false claims of him being linked to Pro-CAA protestors has been busted. So, Please change this to - In Jaffrabad, Shahrukh Pathan participating in the anti-CAA side, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.19.250 (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure where to begin, read wp:blp we cannot say an accused is guilty until they are found guilty. Even then to use such loaded language "ascertained beyond doubt and false claims of him being linked to Pro-CAA protestors has been busted" would fail wp:npov.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Please provide references to FIRs, lawsuits and court judgements that found Kapil Mishra guilty, Evidence to justify the usage of "Hindu Nationalists", Why only "Jai Shree Ram" is mentioned and not Allah hu Akbar chants by rioters in Delhi. Please do not ask me to read the old discussions. I already have, and do not see any evidence that proves the allegations against Kapil Mishra, BJP and Hindus in general have been proven in a court of law. A vast majority of this page is in violation of the same wp:blp and wp:npov that you quote to refuse adding the name of Shahrukh Pathan who was caught on camera using an illegal firearm and pointing his weapon at an unarmed cop. Please make the necessary changes to remove references to Kapil Mishra, Hindu Nationalists and "Jai SHree Ram" as none of these have been proven as facts in a qualified court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.15.110 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not say Mishra is guilty. And we do mention the incident of pointing a gun at police. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven So I think we are in agreement that naming someone with allegations in the page is not a violation of any Wikipedia policies, So what I am baffled with is the rationale behind referring to Shahrukh Pathan whose identity and crime has been proven beyond all doubts, with a generic identifier as a "man" and your reluctance to name him in the page. Please edit the description of the incident under 24 February to include his full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.59.58.104 (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say that, I said we make no allegations against Mishra. And no "Shahrukh Pathan whose identity and crime has been proven beyond all doubts", he is innocent until proven guilty, in a court of law (not a newpaper, we do not have trial by press).Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I absolutely agree with you. Courts should decide, not media trials. Please add the court judgement references that justifies the use of "Hindu Nationalists" and "Jai Shree Ram" Or remove all references to these phrases please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.59.107.253 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A court does not need to determine that someone is a Hindu nationalist for them to be one, nor does a court need to determine certain phrases were used. It is not a crime to be a Hindu nationalist. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we only need to be careful of accusations of criminal activity, if its not actually a crime. So lets stop with the false equivalencies.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven 331dot  It is not a crime to be either a Hindu or a Nationalist in India, But various sections in this article uses this phrase to suggest that they were the perpetrators of the riots before a court of law could judge this based on the merits of evidence. I only asked you to name the accused Shahrukh Pathan with proper references, which you are refusing to do and claim that court should pronounce him guilty. It is you who is indulging in false equivalence and being highly biased and violating wp:npov  by being sqeaumish about naming and identifying Radical Islamic perpetrators in the riots who have been identified with generic identifiers like a "man" while being all too "liberal" with terms like Hindu, Nationalist and "Jai Shree Ram or naming non-muslim actors in the riots." So all I am asking is to try and keep a neutral POV and not use this page for Propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.50.81 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why who is he, just another accused. Is he some major public figure? It does not violate NPOV as he is a nobody. How many Hindus we we name as having committed crimes?Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also please read wp:consensus, its one user against two. You really need to drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Now you are just filibustering with wp:consensus, If I get 10 people to vote for my change, will you accept it as wp:consensus as it would then be 11 against 2?. Also, Can you point me to the section under wp:npov that supports your claim about NPOV not applicable to non public figures?
 * Read wp:consensus, and opinions have to be based on policy, and wp:blp is a pretty major one. WP:UNDUE may cover it as this is only a very minor and insignificant part of the overall riots, not is he a major player. But the main one is BLP, we cannot accuse people of crimes they have not been convicted of, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You should not canvass people to this discussion to support your position. In addition, we have no way of knowing if it would be 10 different people or just you. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

331dot Slatersteven How do we know you are not the same person or friends offline and have connected to create a fake wp:consensus because you NPOV and references myth were clearly busted earlier in this thread? You people are abusing WP policies and selectively applying it when it suits you.
 * It is not against policy for reliable sources to observe that nonspecific Hindus were rioting; it is against policy to assert specific people were committing crimes such as inciting a riot. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 331dot I am not asking for vague baseless edits and statements like the creators of this page have, by using generic terms like Hindu Nationalists, Jai Shree Ram to set an agenda for this page. I am naming a criminal who pointed a gun and you suddenly are squeamish to name him because he is Muslim and it does not fit the agenda you have set for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.62.252 (talk)
 * NO he is not, as he is yet to be convicted. Nor is this article about his crime. You have been asked to read wp:blp, if you continue this I will ask for admin intervention.Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Looks like you have run out excuses to not edit the page to name the Islamist Terrorist called Shahrukh Pathan. Read wp:leftistexcuses and wp:apologistwhataboutery for more lamer explanations.
 * The person's religion has absolutely nothing to do with why the content violates policy. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

331dot Then pray tell me why Naara-e-Takbeer and Allah-hu-Akbar do not find a mention on this page while Jai Shree Ram does. https://national.janamtv.com/nare-e-taqbir-allah-hu-akbar-slogans-used-during-riots-in-delhi-19768/ https://scroll.in/article/962526/in-delhi-violence-investigation-a-disturbing-pattern-victims-end-up-being-arrested-by-police
 * If you have evidence I am the same person as Slatersteven, please offer it. I'd love to see it, since I'm not Slatersteven. 331dot (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Enough now with the BLP violations, I have raised the issue at wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC) (talk) LOL. When all whataboutery fails in a Leftist Liberal, the Closet Fascist emerges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.83.101 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Note the above IP has admitted to block evasion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 November 2020
Hi I have many reliable sources which can prove that this page is completely biased please give me edit access Indiotaku (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A request for edit is not for asking for page protection to be removed, its for suggesting specific edits.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RFPP and contact the admin who protected the page.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Closing as you do not suggest specific edits in a "change X to Y" format. Please note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as everyone has biases. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to bias. We do have policies like WP:BLP that limit what we can say about specific people. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 November 2020
This is a complete biased reporting of the riots. Both the communities clashed and there are victims on both sides. But this report presents that muslims are the only victims. Also, the bias is visible when there is a suggestion in 'See also' section which contains to visit a list of attacks on muslims in India. Also this page doesn't cover the brutal murder of a government IB officer. There is no mention of accused and convicted AAP leader in the page. Please make this report unbiased. 2401:4900:4D23:88D7:3D99:D56D:A9D5:3ACA (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See talk page above and Archives.16:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If you can offer better unbiased sources than the article has, then trot them out. If you have issues with specific sentences, describe in detail the problem so it can be fixed. If you want to propose changes, the propose them in the form "change X to Y" with appropriate sources cited. Otherwise, you're just complaining and that isn't helpful. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended Confirmed Edit Request
Can someone remove the whitespace between the first and second navigation boxes at the bottom of the article? 45.251.33.67 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem seems to be with one of the boxes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by --TheImaCow (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Biased and Communal Views
I read out this article and It really Annoys me So Much that Is it Wikipedia ????? How Can u say Hindu Mob killing Muslims??? It was a communal Violence So Must be adressed by that Way Not with Such kind of Views Also where u Get ur Data From ????? As Far as I know There can never be a Real data for Such Claims So be more neutral and Instead add It as a communal violence in Lead. Opindia expose Wikipedia hypocrisy and u put them in blacklist. I see Cheery Picking of Sources.Samboy 01681 (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Many sources in India are biased towards one side or the other and as such are not independent, so sources from outside India are largely being used, as they have no dog in the fight.   This event has evoked passions based in ancient religions among many people. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims" so we do not say all the victims were Muslim.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It isnt that way around U said That Clearly that Hindu Mob Killing Muslims this is Not Enclyoledia Language Anyway It should be written diretcly as Communal Violence also Bbc Al Jazzera are highly biased towards one Community And Left oriented But Such is Mononopoly that arent writting Communal Riots Instead Hindu Mobs Killing Muslims. Samboy 01681 (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not how I said it, its how wp:rs said it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Being left leaning, even if true, does not preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, as long as they have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. Everything and everyone has biases, and Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. International sources also do not have the same interests in this issue that many Indian media sources have, which seem to support one side or the other's account because they must speak to their readers who largely fall within one side or the other. If you disagree with how the BBC or other international sources describe this event, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Samboy was a sockpuppet, see Sockpuppet investigations/Showbiz826. This person uses IPs and accounts and when blocked says thanks for the block, clearly planning to return. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup - They've got a very distinctive editing style and views, spotting them won't be difficult.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, WP:BLP applies here - and this is not a discussion page for the riots
If multiple reliable sources discuss someone's activities and you want them added to the article, bring them here and suggest your wording.

DO NOT use this page to discuss them (or in fact the riots) - this isn't a forum, this page exists only to discuss improvements to the article. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Every request to include reliable references about the other side of the story are getting denied by the editors. The page is clearly blaming hindus for the riot. It is blaming mr kapil mishra for the riot. But mr tahir Hussain's name cannot be found in the article. Because no indian court has convicted him yet. Has any indian court convicted the hindus? Has any indian court convicted mr kapil mishra? No discussion is possible here because the output is clear. The editors will not include any valid reference about mr Hussain's involvement. They will not included any reference which shows that not only hindus, the muslims were also involved in the riots. There seems to be no violation of wp:blp when including Mr kapil mishra's name more than 30 times in the article. This article is an absolute violation of wp:npov. So no discussion is possible here. The editors are pushing their pov. So what else can be done? Where to raise complaints agains this religiously biased article? Quanta127 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2020
"Hindu mobs attacking Muslims to Muslim mobs attacking Hindus and burning down temples(Specifically Durga temple)" Factcheckworld (talk) 02:32, 13 December 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty clear to me that the requester wants the phrase "specifically Durga temple" added. If this is something significant, I don't see why not. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't read that. It looks to me like they want to flip the POV of the sentence from "Hindus attacking Muslims" to "Muslims attacking Hindus", and we're not going to do that without consensus. This is why edit requests are supposed to be specifically (irony not intended) formatted in a "change X to Y" format, such that we don't have to interpret or guess what's being requested. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but I think it is pretty clear they wanted to change "Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" to "Muslim mobs attacking Hindus and burning down temples(Specifically Durga temple)". So yes switch it about based upon one incident. Nor do we in fact just say "Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", so what their change would actually be "caused chiefly by Hin Muslim mobs attacking Hindus and burning down temples(Specifically Durga temple)" Which not only makes no sense (as the temple was not the main focus of events) but also because it's not what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the "Inter-faith solidarity" section
Since this article has been charged multiple times with having a bias against Hindus, in order to be a little more positive and a little less grim, I propose to expand the Inter-faith solidarity section. The content I wish to add is already present here in the archive. When I previously proposed the changes it was turned down by SerChevalerie. Even at that time, I was waiting for a second opinion but none came. and please share your thoughts. If turned down again by a veteran, I will not bring it up again. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think we should make article changes just to avoiding offending sensisiblties.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to expand that section, for encyclopedic reasons. I doubt that its expansion would have any effect on anyone being offended, as that would happen in the lead, and a reader who is offended by that would have his mind already made up for anything further on. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , sorry but I'm staying uninvolved with article content. You might want to post at WP:NPOV. SerChevalerie hasn't edited for two months. -- Doug Weller talk 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No third-party international sources speak to interfaith solidarity, except perhaps in passing at the very end of an article. Therefore by the rules of sourcing followed in this article, any expansion will be WP:UNDUE.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My intention is not to avoid offending some people. Because that cannot be avoided since the article clearly blames one religion for the riots. I had a discussion on this on the same archive page. Basically where this article should have written "politically motivated violent mobs attacked first", it writes "Hindus attacked first". Anyway that is a different topic. My intention behind expanding this section is to make it act like a small beacon of hope. A beacon that proves that there are well-documented cases of humanity thriving in the midst of chaos. Why? Because I believe Wikipedia also has a social responsibility as well; schoolchildren refer it. I followed all the guidelines of Wikipedia to collect the data. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * why third-party international sources hasn't written about "Inter-faith solidarity" incidents, that I don't know. But saying that "it is a minority point of view", implies that "majority of Indian population doesn't have such a view" which is a very tall claim to make. And regarding the sources, out of given 12, the current wiki page already cites 11 of them (assuming reliable). The one which is not cited is The Free Press Journal, which is mentioned as reliable by you in here. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of CPI (M) report in the investigation
Hi friends,

This has reference to this edit where another editor expressed an apprehension that the input might be undue weightage.

CPI (M) is a recognized national party of India. The Marxists made considerable sacrifices during turbulent periods of Indian history such as terrorism phase in the history of Punjab and have been vocal on many national issues and communal harmony. Hence I propose the inclusion of the removed text as a point of view of one of India's national parties on an event of national importance in the country and far reaching consequences. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The point is not how great CPI(M) is. But a report by a political party, any political party, would need to be evidenced by support from lots of reliable sources for it to be even considered as a reliable source here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Its by a political party, not as far as I can tell one of the major ones, thus it needs to be shown that their opinion was notable. Moreover, it was not "independent" in the sense that a political party has an axe to grind. As you point out they are " vocal on many national issues and communal harmony" and may well just be using this to attack other parties. The implication of th4 test was this was a major report by a wholly neutral body, it was nither.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Why so selective
Why have you taken foreign newspapers as a source. And for India why you have taken The Wire as source which spreads hate for hindus. Why haven't you taken Zee News, India TV etc. Umar Khalid was the mastermind. Tahir Hussain was the mastermind why didnt you mentioned that. YasharthSinha10 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they have no horse in this race. Indian sources would be primary sources to close to events. This has been (as have why we do not call Umar Khalid or Tahir Hussain the "masterminds" countless time here on talk, just go through the archives.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:BLP. We cannot post accusations of criminal activity until a charged person is convicted of a crime by a court of law. 331dot (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

At least yo mention that much that they have been arrested. YasharthSinha10 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Once again, we cannot call people terrorists and murders on this page unless they've been convicted
I'm removing them from the record when I can as WP:BLP violations. If I catch someone doing it twice I'll block them at least from this talk page and the article. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Should have have some banner at the top or something (not that I think it will matter, as this is all about POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not getting violated when the entire article indicates that Mr Kapil mishra is the main culprit behind the riots? Numerous references are included which indicate that mr mishra is the mastermind of the riot. Does WP:BLP apply to people of a particular religion. If not then where is Mr. Tahir Hussain's name? Including Mr Hussain's name is violation of WP:BLP but including Mr Kapil mishra's name is allowed? This is clearly POV pushing by the editors. If the editors are including Mr kapil mishra's name then include Mr tahir Hussain's name also. If if the editors do not want to include Mr. Hussain's name then remove Mr. mishra's name. There is WP:BLP violation by the editors of the page. So please do the necessary. Quanta127 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I asked for a edit citing multiple reliable references to identify Shahrukh Pathan described in the page as "as a man, allegedly from the anti-CAA side." FOr some reasons, some moderators are adamant to not include his name for reasons best known to them and after i provided adequate evidences and references, now are filibustering with a consensus argument which is laughable, as this page is violation of wp:consensus wwhere in the opinion of select moderators is drowning out the requests of a lot of edit requestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.58.66 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * please don't piggy-back on six-month-old comment threads. If you have an issue with a recent edit and there is not a current discussion already on this page, please start a new discussion. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes after your comment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on police reports and a note that Wikipedia is not a place to carry on real world conflicts
The policy that we enforce most strictly is our policy on recently deceased and living persons. WP:BLP. Part of that policy, WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

This policy applies not just to the article but to this talk page. Just to strengthen it, I'm putting the article (and talk page) under our BLP discretionary sanctions.

I hope this explains to all the new editors why Administrators such as myself have been taking the actions that we have taken and will continue to take. If anyone continues to break our policy either here or the article after warnings, they can expect to be blocked from editing at all, or banned from any pages in the sanction area. Too many editors are treating the article and talk page in a WP:BATTLEGROUND matter. Wikipedia is not here to WP:right great wrongs. Probably something like this belongs at the top of the page, although too many new editors probably don't read anything there. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2021
This article is very manipulative and it seems it is written to create disturbance in society, please correct it. It was not Hindu mob or Muslim mob they were the goons so please don't attack any particular religion. Rax420 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit requests must propose specific changes, in a "change X to Y" format, with independent reliable sources to support those changes. We cannot respond to general complaints. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

fact checking of Delhi riot
1. Amantullah Khan, an AAP MLA was booked for instigating violence.

https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/law-and-order/aap-mla-amanatullah-khan-booked-by-police-for-instigating-violence.html

2. Analysis of "Hindu targeting Muslim" on the basis of death count could be treated as fallacy. Moreover a detailed police report shows contradictory evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviks3 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the copius talk pages threads about this above (and in archive).Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be a new development. I am not sure what help will reading the previous discussions and archives will do apart from helping you filibuster any edits that are against your agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.19.212.62 (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It will help you learn that we do not based postings on police reports or statements by rogue officers. Please read WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing how WP:BLP is used as soon as an Islamist Radicals like Umar Khalid, Amanatullah Khan, Tahir Hussain, Saifi are mentioned in an edit, But Kapil Mishra, Hinduism and all kinds of Hinduphobic Slurs are allowed by the Rogue Editors who then go on to laughably describe Police as "Rogue". https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/delhi-riots-court-dismisses-woman-s-bail-plea-in-case-related-to-murder-of-head-constable/story-3kiHjQGnwTd35ihO3SUZRN.html https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/delhi-riots-delhi-court-denies-bail-to-three-people-accused-of-rioting/articleshow/80175084.cms https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/delhi-riots-prima-facie-umar-khalid-others-conspired-together-says-court-121010501141_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the copious amounts of discussion about this already.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

How will me reading the discussions help change the mindset of the editors like you who refuse to admit the facts provided with facts and references? Speak to the point and answer how does WP:BLP prevent naming Umar Khalid but does not violate Kapil Mishra's name from appearing multiple times? Is WP:BLP not applicable to those who follow non-Abrahamic religions?


 * It won't, but it means we will not have to repeat the same arguments we have already stated 15 times before.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

So a Hindu has lesser rights on Wikipedia than a Muslim/Christian? What is this? A Digital Crusade against Pagans on Wikipedia? :D
 * No, and I suggest you read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Typical!The classic modus operandi of WP:BLP to block edits that you do not want and wp:npa to then target the ones asking for the edits. Again I am asking you to counter with facts and speak to the point. The argument was court did not admit Umar Khalid's culpability before. Now that the court has taken cognizance of the role of Umar Khalid and his co conspirators in triggering riots to coincide with the US President's visit to India(A Speech where Umar Khalid is saying the same is on all platforms and is verified.) Yet, you quote older arguments and claim to be the judge, jury and executioner irrespective of any fresh developments. https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/delhi-riots-prima-facie-umar-khalid-others-conspired-together-says-court-121010501141_1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.5.213 (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Reference used are popular leftist portals
I can see all the references mentioned for contents of this article is primarily popular leftist portals like TheWire, ThePrint, TheWashingdonPosts, TheTribunal, etc.

How can you allow left biased opinion pages as references but block right wing references? This doesn't seem to be neutral.

I just looked at few more riot/protest articles which are mostly Hindu-muslim of nature to be naturally biased against Hindus due to blatant misuse of power by Leftist moderator. I am now ashamed that I'm donating to Wikipedia & encouraged others to do so. Going forward I'll advocate anyone against donating to Wikipedia unless they become neutral again.
 * If you have an issue with sources I susgest you take it to wp:rsn. Can you point out where we use opp-eeds?Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I might be triggered because I followed both sides of news, social media & op portals during these riots but can see only one sided news here instead of both. I'll try my best to find & provide relevant citations to help edit this Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustBeNeutral (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view, it does not claim to be free of bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. People should not accept what they see here on blind faith as Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
 * We are happy to see any missing sources you might have, but be advised of WP:BLP. We cannot claim, for example, that so-and-so person started the riot until and unless someone is convicted in a court of law for doing so. That's the main reason the sources you see are present in the article. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition, donations or withholding donations has no impact on Wikipedia content. Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation which operates the computers Wikipedia is on; it is not involved in day to day operations. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hindu Mob Attacking Muslims
It was a pre planned riot. Tahir Hussein confessed it by saying, "They wanted to teach hindus a lesson. " 2032ushimanshu (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the copious amounts of discussion on this in the archives.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please also read WP:BLP. We don't based content on alleged confessions without legal counsel reported by rogue officers; when someone is convicted of a crime by a court of law, let us know. His lawyer says he did not confess. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Bias in article.
If Wiki must be objective, it must also add parts relating to Tahir Hussain, which have not been covered at all in this article. 21 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilok Coontoor (talk • contribs)
 * No it must not, see the umpteen threads above this one as to why.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed; there are strict policies that must be observed, such as WP:BLP. Wikipedia does not claim to be objective or without bias; Wikipedia has a neural point of view. Wikipedia presents the sources to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves as to bias. We just summarize, we don't deal in truth. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become a tool to spread hatred and anarchy. The viewpoints are certainly not neutral. Wikipedia is read all over the world, most of people don't check the credential and supporting documents and just assume whatever is written is right. Wikipedia should remain a medium to share knowledge and not hatred through propaganda. Benefactor1311 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not responsible for readers not checking sources. Wikipedia is not a "medium to share knowledge"; it is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources say about subjects.  If you have specific concerns about this article, please first review the numerous prior discussions about this topic, and then bring up your specific concerns here.  Please also be familiar with WP:BLP.  331dot (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with how Wikipedia operates that is not that this talk page is for.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 February 2021
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 2020 and caused chiefly by muslim mobs attacking hindus. 2405:201:3:F060:ACF4:9782:2E68:7760 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the copious amounts of discussion in the talk page archives about this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ You have not proposed a specific change in a "change X to Y" format, supported with independent reliable sources. As noted, please review prior discussions on this topic, and also review WP:BLP. 331dot (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)