Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 19

Admins to take note of latest verdict and fix the wrong narrative
 The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is a biased one as 9 muslims were convicted for causing planned communal riots on Hindus. Hope someone can fix the conspiracy theory by bunch of admins spreading Hinduphobia. It is still time to fix as the upper part of article is already contradictory with judiciary verdict. 2401:7400:6005:8A0A:4494:3B77:7F0F:5302 (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please offer a reliable source for your claim, as well as sources that say this radically changes the portrayal of this event. I don't see how convictions of Muslims erase everything else that happened here. Hypothetically, if Ukraine commits war crimes, does that erase Russia's war crimes? 331dot (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So we no longer use WP:NPOV and resort to Whataboutery 171.76.86.138 (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying "what about" I'm making a hypothetical analogy. And you dodged the question. Muslims being convicted of their individual actions does not erase the well documented actions of other rioters nor does it change the overall event. 331dot (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So the courts found that it was not " caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims"? And I doubt an appeal to admins not backed up by sources will work. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have the courts ruled otherwise that Hindus are the sole perpetrators? You and 331dot are acting in violations of multiple WPs including WP:NPOV 171.76.86.138 (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not claimed in this article that "Hindus are the sole perpetrators", quite the opposite actually- "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 Hindu mobs attacking Muslims. Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows, or set on fire. The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted." NPOV does not mean whitewashing the article to portray any particular group more favorably than reliable sources state.  331dot (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, read out article before criticizing it. Also we have not tried to use the courts as a source, so we do not have to demonstrate they said anything.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. “I find it well established that all the named accused persons did become part of an unruly mob, which was guided by communal feelings and was having a common object to cause maximum damage to the properties of persons belonging to the Hindu community,” the judge said.
 * Source: https://www.news18.com/india/2020-north-east-delhi-riots-court-convicts-nine-for-arson-theft-7294813.html
 * So the suggested change is communal riots started by Anti-CAA protestors.
 * “It can be said that the localised conspiracy involved in the instant case had emerged out of the larger conspiracy alleged in case FIR No. 59/2020, and the same may also turn out to be a part of such larger conspiracy, but the fact of the matter is that both conspiracies had been hatched at different places, at different times, by different persons and with distinct objects in mind,” said the court.
 * Source: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/tahir-hussain-not-only-a-conspirator-but-a-rioter-delhi-court
 * This also states as per observed by court that it was conspired in advance and thus he is still behind bar.
 * Sources 12 and 13 used in your article citing Hindu attacked muslims are biased as if you dig the author contributions across platform. My earnest suggestion is to take reference from all leading news sources of India eg TimesOfIndia, NDTV, News18, AajTak, etc who are less on opinions and mostly reporting on events.
 * Please avoid banning IP as objective is to have a logical and healthy communication to ensure that neutrality is maintained. 2401:7400:6003:1277:4DC8:4283:9299:2A59 (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Indian media has been pressured by the Indian government to report a certain narrative(See this and here) so they aren't being used here; India does not have a strong history of freedom of the press despite its Constitution.
 * This conviction doesn't erase everything that is depicted in this article. We can and should certainly discuss in this article any convictions related to this event, and we can even state what the court itself said- but everything else that has been said doesn't go away because of this. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone is pressured or is lying except you. It's a shame that Wikipedia has biased and Hindu hating editor like you who is clearly and shamelessly motivated by a propaganda. RonyEdits (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * source:the court, as it happened:
 * https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-riots-2020-delhi-court-frames-murder-charges-tahir-hussain-10-others-death-ib-officer-ankit-sharma RonyEdits (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * " Tahir Hussain, who was an AAP councillor, was arrested for allegedly murdering Sharma." we mention his arrest for murder "AAP leader Tahir Hussain was denied bail. The court said there's enough material on record to presume the former councillor was present at the spot of crime and was instigating the rioters." and that he was denied bail. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * You seem to be quoting Radical Leftist media like New York Times which has a history of anti India and Anti Hindu bias as the ultimate Gospel of Truth.https://www.thequint.com/amp/story/news/india/new-york-times-job-advertisement-india-sparks-row-pm-narendra-modi-government 171.76.87.2 (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "gospel of truth"; I accept nothing as the "gospel of truth". We summarize independent reliable sources here, we do not claim they are the "gospel of truth". If the link you provided is intended to support your position, it doesn't really. If you believe the NYT is "radical leftist" or "anti-India/Hindu" to the point where they make things up out of whole cloth, at least with regards to India, you may challenge the NYT as a reliable source at WP:RSN, but you will need much better evidence than this. Consider why your government might be controlling the information that you get, telling you what it wants you to think, and if that's okay with you. If you want to discuss how to incorporate these convictions into this article, let's do it. If you just want to pontificate about how the West is against India or Hindus for some reason because they don't stick to the position of the Indian government and don't say what you want them to say, I'm done with that. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's very obvious you are not qualified to moderate a page about India because the whole repository of your knowledge is perception based on NYT and WaPo. India or Indians do not need certificates from US media especially in times when the current US administration panders to a certain group with Pseudo liberal pretense to help cover up it's incompetence in return for kinder coverage from Radical Leftist Media. 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a word of this is accurate. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. because NYT said so and anyone who says otherwise is pressurized by Indian Government 😆 Typical Semi Literate White Trash Mentality 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * SlaterSteven submits multiple block requests every week. That's his modus operandi. He does not have the spine to have an open discussion. 171.76.87.2 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not about me. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But somehow everything they goes on the page or doesn't is all about what you perceive. 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As this is not longer about improving the article, but is being used to attack users I move for a close (in violation of wp:npa). Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Here we go again..Lord SlaterSteven and his Wiki Fascism in it's full glory 171.76.87.2 (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Reported to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to have to ask for PP? Slatersteven (talk) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023
Please add that the riots were to cause fear in the minds of Hindus and eleven people have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the riots - these can be used as sources: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-riots-court-charges-hindus-fear-7676631/ and https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/3-years-after-delhi-violence-verdicts-in-less-than-a-tenth-of-riot-arson-cases-8466792/2406:7400:98:7B4C:BD85:C840:E276:7949 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Edit requests need to be made in the format of "change X to Y"- please create a specific edit to propose. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for any change, I am only asking for a sentence to be added, based on the latest news.
 * Please change the last sentence of the lead, "For at least two weeks after the rioting, they avoided each other during the day and at night blocked their lanes with barriers.[47]" to, "For at least two weeks after the rioting, they avoided each other during the day and at night blocked their lanes with barriers.[47] The riots were to cause fear in the minds of Hindus and eleven people have been sentenced to life imprisonment for the riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:98:7B4C:BD85:C840:E276:7949 (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any edit is a change, even if you are not requesting the removal of content. The point is that the edit request process is only for proposing specific changes. If you just want to discuss adding something without a specific proposed edit, it should just be a standard discussion that is not marked as an edit request. Someone will review this(I may later). 331dot (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I see that you are an admin, so please add the sentence to the lead (as the last sentence). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:7400:98:7B4C:BD85:C840:E276:7949 (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Any editor with access may make the edit, not just admins. I am not presently in a position to do so and will be leaving for a bit, someone will evaluate your request. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your second source does not seem to say anything about fear. At best your first source could be used for "and then Indian courts claimed that 10 men charged with rioting "created fear in minds of Hindus"", I am unsure what this really adds. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about Wikipedia. You can add whatever you proposed but instead of 11 charged, it should be eleven were convicted (as per the second source).-2406:7400:98:7E90:7F4C:679C:E6F5:FEF2 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We already say 9 were convicted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Now updated to say two more have been convicted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Admins take note of the Anti Muslim rhetoric and purge all mentions of Islam
I request the Moderators and Admins to purge any mention of Islam and Muslim as it fuels a rhetoric of Islamophobia. 171.76.80.135 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given the events (and what wp:rs say) this is not going to happen. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are fueling Islamophobia. I condemn your behavior and Ideology to defame Islam which is a religion of peace 171.76.80.135 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder if the OP is trolling; the language is very similar to that used above. It's not unlikely it's the same person, presenting the opposite argument in the expectation that we'd confirm their opinions of our biases. Regardless: Slatersteven is entirely correct. Wikipedia's method is summarizing what reliable sources say. Our policies do not allow such a removal. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Too biased article
i feel this article is too biased on the premonition that minorities are being tortured during Modi rule. This article is too one sided and clearly aims to denounce Hindus and promote Hinduphobia. In my opinion the words "predominant" and "Hindus against Muslims" clearly depict the colonial hatred of the "Liberal" people who have written or contributed strictly to the article. With all respect, I would like to remove these words and add neutrality questioned template to this article. Thanks Science nerd11112007 (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:soap, it is hard to take seriously a post that posits that Hindus are subject to colonial hatred as Muslims were also colonial subjects. Also if it was not "Hindus against Muslims" who was involved? As to "predominant", do you have a source that says the tire market was not "predominantly owned by Muslims"? Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Listen to the Colonialists. They know what they did 171.76.85.40 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You ask for respect and then make a personal attack that others like me harbor "colonial hatred", so as Slatersteven says it's difficult to take this seriously. This article is not about colonialism, it is about a riot involving two groups of Indian citizens who(largely) happen to have different religions. The words involved are correctly used by reliable sources.  If you disagree with their characterization of this event, you need to take that up with them, not us. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio
Hi Slatersteven and 331dot. I see you have reverted my removal.

Source:

A fact-finding committee on the February 2020 communal riots in north-east Delhi headed by former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur concluded that the Union home ministry conspicuously delayed deploying additional forces in the violence-hit areas, even as the communal riots continued unabated between February 23 and 26, 2020.

Article:

In October 2022, a fact-finding committee found that the Union home ministry delayed the deployment of additional forces in the violence-hit areas. The committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur concluded that the communal riots continued unabated between February 23 and 26, 2020.

I have bolded all direct copy-paste. This level of copying and close paraphrasing is incompatible with Wikipedia's copyright policy. The editor that added this has an extensive history of copyright violations and is subject to both indef block and a contributor copyright investigation due to this. Special rules apply in these cases per WP:PDELETE allowing indiscriminate removal of their contributions unless proven not to be violations. (e.g. "How is the a copy vio?" is not a valid reason to add it back) Best, CandyScythe (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a copyvio to me, but I'm certainly not an expert. There are only so many ways to say "fact finding committee". 331dot (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 331dot Go cry to your bosses and get me banned for saying this but It's not your job to validate the credentials of the fact finding committee. Stop assuming you are anything more than a petty, said, irrelevant Editor on Wikipedia. 171.76.87.99 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are reading into my comment. This has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:PDELETE, from my reading, allows for the quick removal of suspected copyvio material, esp. if the editor who added it has a history of such, but it does not address the restoration of the contested material if deemed to not be a violation. One would presume that the original adder of the material is barred from simply reverting your change, but shouldn't any editor in good standing be able to make a judgement call if they happen by the situation, and restore if necessary? Zaathras (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Using the same phrases is not a copyvio. It certainly is not when dealing with real names (such as Union home ministry). THis looks very spurious. Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think that they copied enough creative expression, not just names and technical terms, to constitute a violation. It's not as blatant as some other stuff by this user, and I can agree to disagree. However, if you revert a CCI removal you really should explain the reason for it (e.g. "This is not a violation because.."). Best, CandyScythe (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but how can you say "This is not a copyright Violation" and give any more reason than "because it is not"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many possible reasons: "it's a backwards copy", "it's released under a compatible license", "it's PD", "WP:FACTSONLY copied", or "I have read the source and concluded that the paraphrasing is limited enough". Best, CandyScythe (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But if we are telling you its not a copy vio wp:agf means we do not have to say "because we have read it", we (by inference) have. Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would indeed have been better if you had said "This is not a copyright Violation", but what you said was "How is the a copy vio?" which really felt like you were asking me. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is because (per WP:ONUS and wp:consensus) you are supposed to make a case at talk if reverted, so I was asking you to make a case as I could not see one. I was saying "I can't see how you see this as a copy vio". You do not have a consensus, and this is now just a time sink. As such I am bowing out. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is how it normally works, but WP:PDELETE and the CCI page I linked reverse that: please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source.. I'm just saying that in the future that would be appreciated. Best, CandyScythe (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's principles relevant to this article
The 2020 Delhi riots are no longer a current event. Although they are not quite a proper historical event yet, they are getting there. In the three and half years elapsed several secondary sources have been published by scholarly publishers. Here are some important principles worth observing for this article:
 * 1) WP:SOURCETYPES: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
 * 2) WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources.
 * Unless restricted by another policy, Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
 * 1) Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
 * 2) A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.
 * 3)  analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
 * 4) WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
 * Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.
 * 1) WP:TERTIARYTertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize, and often quote, primary and secondary sources. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.
 * Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.
 * 1) WP:FALSEBALANCE: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.
 * 2) WP:HISTRW: To determine scholarly opinions about a historical topic, consult the following sources in order: (a)Recent scholarly books and chapters on the historiography of the topic; (b) "Review Articles", or historiographical essays that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area; (c) Single item "book reviews" written by scholars that explicitly discuss recent scholarship in an area. (d) Introductions to major scholarly works on the topic or introductions to edited collections of chapters often represent a survey of the historiography (e) Signed articles in scholarly encyclopaedia

As stated above, three and a half years have elapsed since the event. Scholarly secondary sources have appeared. The material may not have made it into introductory textbooks yet, but specialized encyclopedias and review articles very likely have appeared and may be utilized to determine due weight. See below:

Christophe Jaffrelot, Modi's India, Princeton Unversity Press, 2021
Jaffrelot has almost 10 pages on the riots. What appears above is a small sample.

Lall, Anand, Bridging Neoliberalism and Hindu Nationalism, Bristol University Press, 2022
Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)