Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 2

Lead figures
we didn't find any statement and comment to provoke the people towards riot from Amanatullah Khan. Please remove that person from leadfigure, since he has no link with incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Jorvee (talk • contribs)
 * ✅ Indeed, there is a user who is repeatedly violating WP:BLP by addin git again and again, I have asked admins to sanction him. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  06:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There was role of Waris Pathan he started this in his speech about the 15 cr and 100 cr which showed the ripple effect in other states. --Ashishyadav400 (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)ashishyadav400


 * This is an encyclopedia, not your social media timeline, WP:NPOV and irrational and imaginary opinions are not added in wiki, period. And who said that there is a role ? Dey subrata (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

❌ there is no connection Dey subrata (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Waris Pathan of AIMIM party threatened tht 15 crore muslims would take over 100 crore hindus inciting hate Also tahir hussain of AAP party (which is the party in power in Delhi) had an organized mob of about 300 men in his multistoried building hurling petrol bombs, acid, stones and bricks and is alleged to have been involved in the murder of IB Official Ankit Sharma Aditya Satnalika India (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That comment is not related to Delhi riots. Tahir has been discussed above.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  20:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a link pertaining to tahir hussain https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/delhi-violence-case-filed-against-aaps-tahir-hussain-for-murder-arson-2186844 He has not been discussed above Aditya Satnalika India (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove names of Anurag Thakur and Pravesh Verma, there statements were made much before the riots and have no direct role in inciting it. Why Tahir Hussain is not included when he is under suspicsion of actually carrying out violence while all others lead figures mentioned have no such role ? Ravi1991ss (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Read the thread on Tahir Hussain to understand why. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  08:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Before you had cited the reason as to no reliable source so as to include tahir hussain but now that i have provied a link above from ndtv you should add his name to the main article Aditya Satnalika India (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see the comments at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  09:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Remove the name of Kapil Mishra. He said nothing wrong. 2gourab (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Like Tahir Hussain, Kapil Mishra and others too had not been proven guilty yet, so why are they included as Lead Figures ? Ravi1991ss (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It has been explained in great detail at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots. If you cannot be bothered to read, then I cannot help you.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Tahir Hussain is indeed a key Lead Figure to the Riots .The article clearly violates the WP:NPOV

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/delhi-police-registers-fir-against-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain/article30935161.eceMalabarspices (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These links does not claim what you are saying. %%%-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

One sided news being published
This is shameful that only one sided facts are published.. It seems that they r trying to present it as hindu terrorism... The provocative anti hindu anti indian comments are not mentioned... Nothing about shahrukh (the man who fired 8 rounds of bullets ) is mentioned... Leftists everywhere.. Arkadeep Dey (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Is there anything added in the article is without proper and reliable citations? What else do you think is not mentioned? "Provocative anti hindu anti indian" which one and is it added withou citations? How and if added, anti-Hindu become anti-Indian? "Leftish everywhere" is direct abuse, and labelling, explain how? or else I will make sure you be blocked from wiki. Dey subrata (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I mean to say that the provocative words of the anti caa protestors were not mentioned... Arkadeep Dey (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * And in one of the replies to someone, I saw a reply is made saying that no person was killed by that guy shahrukh so it is not that important... I don't know wht he tried to mean with that... Please elaborate... That guy openly fired and he's saying it isn't important just because BBC, Reuters didn't cover it!!! Seriously!!... Anyways forgive me for my last words... Arkadeep Dey (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that Dey Subrata... Arkadeep Dey (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , which words? Explain with reliable citations. Your second concern, the shooting guy, is important so too other shooters, there were several shooters, how can an article give importance to just one shooter just because he was captured in video and talked about, there are various shooter and various other videos too. So yes the editor was correct in his words about the shooting issues. And remember wikipedia is not news, we cannot include everything that is included in news articles. You must go through WP:NOT. And next time be careful what you say here, be civil and respect other, this is not social media and neither newpaper articles. Everything written here with proper and reliable citations and also with proper justification and rationale and with consensus. Dey subrata (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You can, right here at this talk page, give a news source which supports "provocative words of the anti caa protestors". Once you give a source, we can talk about how we will add it to the article. But please understand that if you are proposing to add something to the article, you should start by giving a source first. Regards. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 01:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Add the names of Tahir Hussain, Waris Pathan, Faizul Hassan, Sharjeel Imam, Amanatullah Khan, RJ Sayema, Manish Sisodiya and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's names in the Lead Figures list of North East Delhi Riots Rishivam2020 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ No source given to support the claims.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  21:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

1.) The hate speeches and provocative statements of the above lead figures are widely available on the internet, add these names asap.

2.) Shahrukh's name has been still not mentioned in this article (the man who took a policeman on his gunpoint)

3.) Ellaborate the brutal murder of IB officer Ankit Sharma which took place at Tahir Hussain's house. Ankit's body was brutally stabbed continuously for 4 hours.

5.) A hole was made in the brain of another riot victim Vivek by a drill machine.

6.) Remove the photograph of Kapil Mishra under the Incitement column as the riots took place due the protestors who blocked the Seelampur Metro station. This event was planned by Anti-CAA protestors on the occasion of Trump's visit. Rishivam2020 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Also there are sources confirming most of this, https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/family-of-intel-employee-ankit-sharma-killed-in-delhi-clashes-dont-worry-about-money-he-said-2186159 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.40.239.178 (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Biased article. No mention of numbers and proofs against muslim rioters. Not expected from Wiki authors. Ab FreeBird (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. All anti muslim violence are mentioned bt anti hindu violences are largely ignored. Even after I ama providing links from reliable sources, they are not put for unknown reasons. Arkadeep Dey (talk) 06:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Ignore the typos.. Arkadeep Dey (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read and follow Edit requests guidelines. I will reply back if you can make separate threads for each topic, in a "Change X to Y format along with reliable source. I do not read or respond in WP:WALLOFTEXT format. Thanks for your understanding. regards. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:35, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020
The riots were instigated by Waris Pathan who openly called for muslim community to wage a war against Hindus. He is the prime sponsor of Shaheen bagh which has become the symbol of Anti CAA protest.

Liberals are trying to pass the buck on Kapil Mishra, BJP leader just to hide the hate speech of Shoaib Jamai, Waris Pathan and Assaudin Owaisi. Preeti Dhawan Walia (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Article is totally one sided
While blaming Kapil Misra please add what all he said and what is really provocative there and compare that with statements of Waris or Sharjeel. This is a classic story of capturing the perspective of pseudo liberals and pseudo seculars

Also factually incorrect when it says peaceful protest by Misra gets attacked by pro CAA group in the very first section Srinivaks (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see what the Hon. High Court said about his speech today in Court. Will you say that HC is biased ?


 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kapil-mishras-controversial-speech-played-in-delhi-high-court/article30920985.ece
 * https://news.abplive.com/news/india/delhi-riots-hc-directs-police-to-register-fir-against-kapil-mishra-others-for-inflammatory-speeches-1165895
 * https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-violence-high-court-kapil-mishra-hate-speech-video-1650153-2020-02-26  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I also want to add that this article is totally biased not mentioning Amanatullah Khan, or that bus drivers in Maharastra are also being beaten up due to this. https://www.altnews.in/video-of-bus-driver-beaten-up-in-maharashtra-shared-with-communal-angle-amid-delhi-riots/. Wiki moderators should look into the bias characteristics of this article. --Datta (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what is the relation of amanatulla or bus drivers in maharashtra with delhi riots ? please explain with evidence  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Articles from Opindia to Business Insider mention Amanatullah Khan's involvement with this whole incidence from mid-December. I think Business Standard is a proper source. --Datta (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The article also fails to mention the emerging link between the riots and related protests with the extremist Islamist organization PFI

❌ POV and irrational opinions. Has been discussed many and several times. Dey subrata (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call this POV and irrational. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has found evidence linking PFI to the riots. [1 ] [2 ] [3 ] and these are prominent sources. Also importance of money where it comes from is important to understand the structure of this entire incidence. --Datta (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Pls add the incidents of vandalism of Hindu properties,as you have mentioned many times about torching of Muslim properties... []... Arkadeep Dey (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please provide the draft cotnent that you want to add along with the link of reliable source supporting it.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've provided the link Arkadeep Dey (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read and follow Edit requests guidelines. It is not clear what draft content you want to add to the article, kindly present your draft in change X to Y format with the WP:Refs. Thanks for your understanding. regards. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigxray is naxalite or jihadi terrorist. He is linked to PFI ie facade of ISIS or maybe an urban naxalite. Ansh451 (talk) 04:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Politically influenced article
Role of islamists who are attacking homes of residents & police with petrol bombs completely whitewashed. No mention of provocative speeches by Waris Pathan & Amanatullah khan Indostar1331 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Waris Pathan & Amanatullah khan are not related to this riot. Provide ref and content you want to add.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

How are they not relevant? They are the ones who incited the Muslims and extremist islamists to start the riots. Inflammatory speeches by Pathan and Amanatullah had a big impact on how the situation built up. By the same logic then the shaheen bagh protests are unrelated as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.228.66.14 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Waris pathan and amanatullah khan are directly involved in riots they made inflammatory speeches directly urging Muslims to go on road few days back. Ofcourse when repeatedly such videos are cirucluated than they start taking affect and it all started to take effect on 22 Feb. There are various videos and articles directly linking even in court it has been discussed. Wikipedia should have all information and wiki page can't be judge of who started anything we present available Info. Indian Court will decide. Sanwat (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Does these leader brought their supporters by saying "come there with huge number and will reply the jaffrabad protesters" ? Does any of these person give such ultimatum to police and directly challenging police if not protesters removed they will take law on hand? Did thakur, a&p verma deliver hate speech or not, and is there anyother leader who deliver such in Delhi? Who are the people against whom court asked police to take actions? Did pathan give speech in Delhi? Answer yourself and get you rationale straight before commenting WP:UNDUE. Dey subrata (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

❌ irrational commentary. Dey subrata (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Anurag Thakur was in no way connected to the riots. Aditya Satnalika India (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The Delhi High Court had asked police to file cases against them for giving hate speech in Delhi. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Check this where Delhi High Court sought the response of the Centre, Delhi government and the police on pleas seeking FIRs against political leaders, including Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, for alleged hate speeches. Chech this too.--Biman1989 (talk) 05:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Shahrukh
The all editors who edit here I want their opinions. According to my point of view the incident of Shahrukh should be added. The incident gets much coverage. Though I added it earlier but later it was removed. What do you think?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , why do you think it merits a mention here ? All he did was wave a gun and fire in the air. There is no evidence he killed or injure anyone. Not worth to be mentioned due to WP:BLPNAME  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  20:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes he did not kill or injure anybody. But, his video went on viral. And directly firing to police is not a common thing. If we should not mention his name as he is not notable can the incident be added in the article?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you read international new sites, like reuters, BBC, you will find that they did not cover this incident. why ? because it was not a major incident. Lot of videos became viral for example the guy being dragged on road, one singing Jan gan man, The man breaking masjid minaret, There are so many. We cannot possibly cover all of this. I would suggest you to focus on more important things like Killing of IB officer, Killing of Constable, or other major incidents, lot of them needs to be expanded.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  20:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib Wikipedia dont write rumors, there are so many rumors on social media(viral photos and videos) which we cant just include in this page. As a responsible writer you should write only those things which is correct and meaningful. If you start writing name of every rioters then there is no worth of Wiki pages and article. Till now more than 200 people arrested by police and we dont think we should enlist all those 200 people here. Hope this help you! Rashid Jorvee (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * He should be mentioned by name as this was an important development. Since when is the brazen threatening of an unarmed police officer a minor thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.228.66.14 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussed above several times. Name is not required to be added per WP:NOTE, WP:BLPNAME and there were other shooter too, and seeing nobody got killed by him but other shooter did kill, it again fails notability per WP:NBIO. And police did not give any clarification of identification of shooter who killed people. So no we can't add such things. Dey subrata (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

New names have been added to the victim's citations
Hey the citation https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-violence-death-toll-rises/article30919252.ece which is already in use for victims list has updated its list with two more names- Mohammad Ali & Amaan. If you could add their names till we reach a consensus of the casualty list's need. I am unable to do it as I haven't made more than 500 edits. Trojanishere (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere
 * , have removed the section as per consensus achieved. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This article violates neutral point of view
Some highly baised people are editing this article. This article is selective and so is misleading.

Mind you not suggesting that Hindu elements are not involved, but to show unfairness and unequality resulting in biasness in the article.

1. While Hindu slogans are prominantly mentioned nowhere are the Islamic slogans raised in riots

Please see "...On Tuesday, rioters from both the communities were seen moving around with swords, lathis, stones completely unchecked. The frenzied mobs chanting incendiary slogans — — Jai Shri Ram and Nara-e-tadbeer Allah hu Akbar — hurled stones, petrol bombs at each other..."

https://www.asianage.com/india/all-india/260220/delhi-burns-during-trump-visit-death-toll-rises-to-13.html

Titled as the first reported death "He recalled hearing chants of “Allah Hu Akbar” as the mob came closer. He fell unconscious after he was hit on the head with sticks. “I think papa was still breathing at the time. They hit him everywhere, on his face, his head,”"

https://scroll.in/article/954574/divided-city-how-barricades-came-up-overnight-between-hindu-and-muslim-neighbourhoods-in-delhi

3. While photo of Kapil Mishra and an quote of a victim's father blaming him is mentioned, nowhere is photo of the other alleged hate speech givers, and quotes blaming Tahir Hussain

Please see "...Ankit's father, Ravinder Sharma, ...accused supporters of an Aam Aadmi Party leader, Tahir Hussain, of attacking Ankit and killing him...

"Get Hold of him (AAP leader). He is responsible for the deaths and he is on the run. Police should get hold of him,"..." https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/family-of-intel-employee-ankit-sharma-killed-in-delhi-clashes-dont-worry-about-money-he-said-2186159

4. Lead figures mentions Kapil Mishra... on allegation of hate speech but fails to mention Tahir Hussain etc. who took part in the riots. A section on Tahir Hussain was added too late only when became impossible to hide due FIRs and AAP membership suspension.

5. Although it mentions Hindu victims, yet such names makes this article kind of oxymoron, you should remove them, then "your" article would be much more consistent, no hate speeches by muslims, no lslamic slogans, no attacks on journalists, no mention of Tahir Hussain till can be, no Hindu victims, no property loss to Hindus.

6. Shahrukh Khan the shooter, was defended here by saying he did not kill anyone just fired eight shots while standing right in front of a policeman. Very nice.

7. Attack on Masjids are mentioned and should be mentioned when reported by media. Yet to show selectiveness I remind some users here that they not only turned blind but agrued against including an attack on Hindu temple by anti-CAA protesters on The Citizenship Amendment Act protest page at its talkpage. Very nice

8. Someone wrote "Several journalists reporting on the riots stated that they had been threatened by pro-CAA mobs" and later names of Hindu groups are explicitly mentioned, wherease attacks by anti-CAA protesters is missing in the beginning as well as in details.

"Mere saat jo tha, woh chala gaya [The guy, who was with me, has died],” Mr. Napa said with a sense of loss. The reporter claimed that he was shot by anti-CAA protesters. "

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/first-came-petrol-bomb-stones-then-they-shot-at-me-reporter/article30926971.ece

"Urjita said she and Fatima — whom she was with — constantly exchanged names depending on the crowd."

https://theprint.in/opinion/why-delhi-riots-are-different-what-theprints-13-reporters-photojournalists-saw-on-ground/371981/

Such unfair and baised editing amounts to a missuse of the Wikipedia for propaganda.

Very unfortunate that there are people who make such selective edits and then when it suits there argument they write somewhere "... Don't you feel your single line will be read by lakhs of people here, and narratives and perception will be created FROM it..."

Care about narratives and perceptions, quoting of WP policies and block threats only when the reality goes againts there biases and prejudices.

As an IP user I tried to reason with some of them at The Citizenship Amendment Act protest talkpage, but those with prejudices and biases, and bent on propaganda, are blind to reason and when they lose argument, they just withdraw as an IP user can't do much on protected pages.

Again mind you that not suggesting that Hindu elements not involved but to show unfairness and unequality resulting in biasness in the article

Tell the truth as it is, whole and complete truth. Treat all with equality and fairness, no matter what you believe and know, no matter how much you are prejudiced and baised against anyone.2405:204:3323:9B54:74E0:D3F4:A8D0:A375 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This comment above blatantly violates, WP:NOTFORUM if you want something to be changed, please propose it in a change X to Y format, and add a reliable source.-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  08:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC) %%%
 * This comment does not violate NOTFORUM. The user is suggesting changes to be made to the article with sources. The least we can do is consider what they have posted. M4DU7 (talk) 08:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If 95 citations can be added about Kapil Mishra's 'prominent' role in incitement (and the others mentioned by Justice Muralidhar in the Delhi High Court) and five citations for other folks, then if the '95 percent' is given 'primacy' or 'prominence,' then it's not violative of 'neutral point of view.' It's merely the preponderance of evidence; or, just plain common sense. This is obvious but I felt this needed to said here. Sachi Mohanty 08:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Sachi bbsr (talk)

Why my section was so quickly archived?
Continuing the section "this article violates neutral point of view"

To DBigXray

WP:NOTFORUM makes four points, do not use Wikipedia for any of the following: Primary (original) research, Personal inventions.,Personal essays, Discussion forums  ... You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles...

Firts WP:NOTFORUM relates to the article, not its talk page.

Moreover WP:NOTFORUM itself suggests use of talk page to resove problems with articles.

On talk page, I quoted sources to mention the other sides where only one side was mentioned, to resolve violation of neutral point of view in the article. What changes are needed are obvious in my comments.

To Sachi bbsr

For "If 95 citations can be added about Kapil Mishra's 'prominent' role in incitement...

95 citation if mentions one speech then equal to one incitement, not prominent role, Five citation for other folks, if mentions five speech then amounts to five incitement

Who has prominent role in riots is amply made clear by vidoes showing Tahir Hussain house and Shahrukh Khan firing. Again what violates neutral point of view here is no mention of the citation for other folks at all. This selective primacy or prominence and selective denial is what violates neutral point of view

For "Preponderance of evidence or common sense"

This is doctrine of law and as per the Wikipedia "Preponderance of the evidence (American English), also known as balance of probabilities (British English), is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money..."

I do not know how it is used in writing articles at the Wikipedia, where no original research is needed and neutral point of view is required, and which is not a form for anything more. The article is full of bias and prejudices, not the preponderance of evidence or common sense.

For " the others mentioned by Justice Muralidhar in the Delhi High Court"

A petitioner reached the Hon'ble Delhi HC ask for direction for FIR against Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma. "The court also said that its order applies to all inflammatory speeches and not just the three BJP leaders." https://www.firstpost.com/india/dont-want-repeat-of-1984-says-delhi-hc-directs-police-to-decide-on-firs-against-bjp-leaders-over-hate-speeches-by-today-8089031.html

Do not be selective in reply, why no mention of Islamic slogans" Allah Hu Akar" when Hindu slogans are prominently mentioned, no mention of attacks on journalists by Anti-CAA protesters when attacks by pro-CAA protesters are mentioned, no mention of the quote of Ankit sharma's relative blaming Tahir Hussain and when a quote blaming Kapil mishra is mentioned, why no photograph of Tahir Hussain and Shahrukh Khan showing their prominent role in roits  when photograph of Kapil Mishra is there for his incitement.

For "This is obvious but I felt this needed to said here"

The bais and prejudices are obvious in the article but I felt this needed to said here.2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This page is to discuss article improvements, not for ranting in thousands of words and posting huge walls of text. . If you have suggestions to add/update few lines, make a proposal in "CHANGE X TO Y FORMAT" with "RELIABLE SOURCE. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  12:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Since you accused me of WP:NOTFORUM, so needed to make you read it.
 * To show your biasedness pointwise reply is needed
 * Please reply to each point 2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Congratulation. You have made your point.
 * Please read and follow Edit requests guidelines. I will reply back if you can make separate threads for each topic. I do not read or respond in wP:WALLOFTEXT format  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read wP:WALLOFTEXT which says... Pointing out to someone that they're text-walling only shows that you don't care for their opinion, or that you're averse to nuance. Similarly, linking to this page in response to a massive wall of text is just a cudgel to use against your opponents. This may be true, because there is a genuine difference between a massive wall of text and a well-reasoned, nuanced argument.
 * Detailed pointwise reply is needed because you seem to be denial when it comes to somethings 2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read and follow Edit requests guidelines. I will reply back if you can make separate threads for each topic. I do not read or respond in WP:WALLOFTEXT format. Thanks for your understanding. regards.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:WALLOFTEXT atleast what I quoted above before using it anywhere and everywhere.2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ok.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Add so that the article is balanced and shows both sides
1.Add use of slogan "Allah Hu Akbar"

please see https://www.asianage.com/india/all-india/260220/delhi-burns-during-trump-visit-death-toll-rises-to-13.html https://scroll.in/article/954574/divided-city-how-barricades-came-up-overnight-between-hindu-and-muslim-neighbourhoods-in-delhi

As "Jai Shree Ram" mentioned

2. Add attacks on journalists by Anti-CAA protesters

please see

"Mere saat jo tha, woh chala gaya [The guy, who was with me, has died],” Mr. Napa said with a sense of loss. The reporter claimed that he was shot by anti-CAA protesters. "

https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/first-came-petrol-bomb-stones-then-they-shot-at-me-reporter/article30926971.ece

"Urjita said she and Fatima — whom she was with — constantly exchanged names depending on the crowd."

https://theprint.in/opinion/why-delhi-riots-are-different-what-theprints-13-reporters-photojournalists-saw-on-ground/371981/

As attacks on journalists by pro-CAA protesters is mentioned

3. Add a quote by relative of Ankit Sharma's father blaming Tahir Hussain for his death

"...Ankit's father, Ravinder Sharma, ...accused supporters of an Aam Aadmi Party leader, Tahir Hussain, of attacking Ankit and killing him... "Get Hold of him (AAP leader). He is responsible for the deaths and he is on the run. Police should get hold of him ..."

https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/family-of-intel-employee-ankit-sharma-killed-in-delhi-clashes-dont-worry-about-money-he-said-2186159

As an quote by victim's relative is mentioned blaming Kapil Mishra

4. Add photographs of Tahir Hussain and Shahrukh Khan the shooter, for taking parts in riots.

As photograph of Kapil MIshra is there for inciting comments2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please Make separate threads for each topic/ change. If you have suggestions to add/update few lines, make a proposal in "CHANGE X TO Y FORMAT" with "RELIABLE SOURCE" supporting that content. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  12:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do not you do the same when it comes to adding information that reinforces your biases and prejudices2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read and follow Edit requests. thank you  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are doing so much editng, please read WP:NOPV, and apply it in letter in spirit. There would be no need to discuss thing here2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read and follow Edit requests guidelines. I will reply back if you can make separate threads for each topic. I do not read or respond in wP:WALLOFTEXT format.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * why is that only when the otherside is shown you requires things to be followed and if it shows Hindus in bad light then it gets added, let the some users protest?
 * Saying "I do not read or respond in walloftext" is a denial, devoid of arguments, comming to technicalities, even so Walloftext does mean all detailed nuanced reply are a walloftext please read wP:WALLOFTEXT2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Every side has to follow. Thank you. Anything else ?  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No both sides are not being treated equally and the discussion on the talk page reflects that 2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX that has to be followed. If you do not want to follow them, then no one can help you. You can start your own blog and write whatever you want to write.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP and WP:SOAPBOX needs to be followed for both the sides, for Kapil Mishra also, unequal treatment of two sides violates WP:SOAPBOX
 * No one may help me, do not worry for that dear.
 * I also advice you "You can start your own blog and write whatever you want to write." While writing on wikipedia please use neutral point of view 2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ok -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
Sonia Gandhi, Amanatulla Khan, Tahir Hussain, HindusimPhobia, Pro CAA 111.93.249.134 (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
Please remove the sentence of like this:
 * He also announced a compensation amount of "Rs 10 lakh would be extended to affected people, Rs 1 lakh ex-gratia. Rs 5 lakh would be granted in case of death of a minor,"

And replace that word with similar and same words like this but with currency conversion to US Dollar alongside Indian rupees. Only valued in Indian rupees cause misunderstanding to readers outside India. 180.242.51.208 (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done using template %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes definitely I will propose changes becoz this article presents wrong facts. Correct story must be told to the internet users as a matter of their right. Divya gupta83 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wrong and fake article
The article shows as if riots were created by Hindus of the area. Which is totally wrong and against all the available facts, pictures and videos and also reports of journalists. Tahir husain, an AAP MLA was clearly shown to be involved with materials already planned at his house to cause burning of petrol pumps and cars parked in bhajanpura. A house of a hindu girl to be married was burnt deliberately. Anti CAA protesters statred throwing stones at pro CAA protesters because of which many of them were injured badly and struggling for life at hospitals. Muslim youth had guns which they used freely at policemen and public. Shahrukh is seen clearly targetting a policeman. Ankit Sharma, an IB officer was killed by muslims under the protection of Mr.Tahir Hussain as reported in FIR registered against him. In all areas muslims started the violence and stone pelting. It was a pre planned riot by anti caa protesters i.e. muslims just before Trumps visit to highlight their issue. So many Hindu's have lost their lives and have been injured in these riots.

The published article is fake and far away from reality. Divya gupta83 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Fake article Not expected this from Wikipedia.

We always refer to Wikipedia for any information. But this article has totally dwindled my faith in Wikipedia.I with full responsibility say that the information presented in the article is totally twisted. Proper research must go in before publishing such articles because they might make a part of history.

Now skeptical about other articles also which i have ever read on wikipedia. Kindly remove this article as it doesn't present facts. Divya gupta83 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Twisting the facts and showing half side of the picture does not make the article fake. here is how international media covered it.
 * Time: Narendra Modi Looks the Other Way as New Delhi Burns
 * That Ankit Sharma was killed by mobs shouting Jai Shri Ram..
 * Wikipedia is not here to serve as a #WP:SOAPBOX for political parties. You can check their propaganda sites if that sort of thing is what you like to read.
 * If you have suggestions to improve the page you can refer to wP:ER and propose improvements. %%% -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  21:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have suggestions to improve the page you can refer to wP:ER and propose improvements. %%% -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  21:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the lead
User:QEDK can you help in expanding the lead to cover the article. The lead doesn't include anything about the violence. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  21:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not! --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have expanded it to cover the article now. %%%-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Need a section for "Investigation into the riots"
Preliminary investigation has revealed involvement of two gangs. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 04:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * More sources ,,. I'll make a draft. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 10:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Correction : Pogrom
1. This is probably the only riots related page which has Goals in the infobox. How can there be one singular goal when the clashes were between two different communities. 2. Pogrom itself is basically a riot aimed at the massacre of one community. Since casualty lists include both hindus and muslims proving that not just one community was targeted, this word should be removed. A14i12 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me quote this SC lawyer Karuna Nandy "-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  10:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * So now a person's opinion is to be considered a valid source?? You have been rejecting edits on the basis of lack of credible sources and your big source is an individual's opinion?? This event doesn't match the very definition of the word pogrom as given in wikipedia. Moreover since pogrom itself is a targetted riot, how can it be one of the methods used in the riot?A14i12 (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If that lawyer's opinion is why you have added 'pogrom', then I'm afraid it'll have to go. There's not one reference in the entire article which supports these riots as pogrom, and obviously so becuase the normalcy has just began and police investigation has now started. For one opinion like this, there are many others who can say the opposite. But they're all opinion of individuals. Please remove it. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * LoL, I used her comment as a rational argument, as a response to the OPs opinion. Opinion as a response to an opinion. I never said that her comment is an RS. I find this amusing that you are jumping over this. The pogrom cannot be removed.
 * Here is BBC article referring to it as Pogrom
 * Here is The Diplomat article
 * And here is New york Times also TRT World-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  12:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a valid rational. What certain reporters who wrote these articles think of this incident is hardly an evidence. Those are still just opinions and a number of factors may have influenced this opinion. If tomorrow, a flat-earther reporter makes a case for the earth being flat, would the wikipedia community cite that to edit Earth page? By simply looking at the victims list one can understand that both hindus and muslims have been killed. According to several sources both hindus and muslims were the perpetrators. In such a scenario how can this be a pogrom.

Moreover, please remove "Goals" from the infobox. There can't be a singular goal when two communities attack each other. A14i12 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Now you are going around in circles, Read my first reply in this comment once again. and see the links I shared. Wikipedia uses what WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources are saying. Read Kapil Mishra's speech for the goal.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  12:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read the context of usage of word 'pogrom' in all of the articles? trtworld article uses it for Gujarat riots of 2002, for Narendra Modi (2002), and a 'possibility' (future) in current riots. It uses unverified viral videos of social media and words like 'thugs' and 'goons'. The diplomat article uses word 'pogrom' as quoted by "Several other journalists", without giving any link to who are they. BBC article is an opinion piece and uses opinion of a professor who believes the riots are "begining to look" like a pogrom. All of these are merely opinion used out of context here. How are they justified? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, FYI, TRT World says "-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is just a stand-alone quote without any context. As if author just declared his opinion without substantiating it. You know it. If not for the design of the website, one would hardly be able to distinguish that article form an opindia article. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , It says so in the first line. LoL TRT world is a reliable Turkish news site. Take it to RSN if you want.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, at the top, the article itself states it's an opinion piece. Since it is an opinion, the statements of the author are required to be substantiated. So the first line which uses the word 'pogrom', simply calls the riots as a pogrom, and that's it. The author doesn't justify it further with any evidence as how it is a pogrom and why does he call it that way. Thus it cannot used as a source. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 14:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , The support by police has been documented and published by many many news sites, both domestic and foreign. The links have been shared where the event has been referred to as Pogrom. This is valid per WP:MAINSTREAM and the WP:BURDEN has been met.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You started the article "using templates from 1927 Nagpur riots and 2002 Gujarat riots". The word pogrom was included even then. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray This is just flawed logic. Just like you didn't let Tahir Hussain be mentioned due to lack of evidence and due to the lack of formal announcement by the Delhi Police, you cannot derive a cause and effect scenario from Kapil Mishra's speech as the Delhi police is yet to release an official report. Other source that I had mentioned clearly states that anti-caa protesters had in fact hurled stones at pro-caa gatherings. This very well could be the tipping point which set these clashes off and not Kapil Mishra's speech. Now even if there is a cause and effect relation between Kapil's speech and the riots, it is common knowledge that the riots were not one sided and since there were two different groups of perpetrators, there just cannot be a single goal. Moreover, I just do not understand why is there a need to add Goals in the first place. None of the wikipedia pages about riots(except the direct action day) have goals in the infobox simply because assigning a goal to a riot just makes humanizes these inhuman murderers. Such violence doesn't have a goal as they are based out of pure hatred.

Please do not make this page a propaganda page. Goals and pogrom on this doesn't make any sense. This was a spontaneous act of violence by two communities and not just one and there is literally no evidence to suggest otherwise. Foreign media are not a reliable source for something that is taking place in India. Leftists have a tendency to label everything as a pogrom and genocide. Authors have to use their logic to differentiate between fact based reporting and opinion based allegations. In any case how can a pogrom be one of the "Methods" used in the riots. Killing, arson , rioting, looting are methods but how is a pogrom a method. Please set aside your bias and remove these 2.

A14i12 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article from thewire about A mob shouting 'Allahu Akbar' started attacking us supports the argument that these are riots, not pogrom. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 12:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Entire Page created for delhi riot is full of propaganda and onesided biased with proper intention to misled future audiences.pogrom means ethnic cleansing of a particular community like what happened in Mayanmar against Rohingyas. here both communities suffered and both involved in one of the worst roit. but still few admins are completely doing propaganda work "We are Experienced hence we are the boss" tag. Not quiet surprised. Biman1989 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Quote by father of victim
I disagree with adding this quote as a quote box (no objection to mentioning it in the text though). As much as we sympathise with the victims, highlighting one particular quote is undue weight and the presentation in the quote box (without context) is bordering a BLP violation (in comparison, the mention in the text is OK because it specifies it as an allegation). If this quote was highlighted by a significant number of media, perhaps it would be OK to include it in the quote box. However, that is not the case here.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , how is it a BLP violation ?  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  18:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an allegation being given undue weight (when presented in the quote box). The quote box also removes the context. As tragic as the incident is, we don't selectively highlight quotes unless the quote itself has received proportionally significant coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No it does not make it a BLP violation, you can read it again. Mishra is a notable person as an ex MLA and ex minister. As for UNDUE, Do you realize that Kapil Mishra's name as an incitor of riots is being mentioned in not only SIGNIFICANT BUT EVERY newspaper all around the world that are reporting on Delhi riots ? His video was even played out in Hon. High Court, where the Judge blasted the police for not filing a hate speech case on him.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  19:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the specific quote which is undue, not the fact that family members of victims have blamed Mishra as an incitor. Why highlight this specific quote? Are quotes by family members of other victims not important? How do we select one?--DreamLinker (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * it is not undue. It is common to include quotes. This quote was used as a title of the article by a major newspaper obviously for some good reason. The reason I believe the newspaper chose this was it shows the tragedy of riots, when politicians escape unharmed while the common people suffer dearly. There can be no bigger loss for a father than loss of his young son. Hence I believe the newspaper used it as a quote and the same reason our article must also use this as a quote.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  19:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This sensationalist newspaper?, ? Jansatta is not a "major" newspaper. I don't see other reliable sources (particularly other major newspapers in India) using this quote. As tragic as it is, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We summarise information and don't highlight specific quotes, unless a major proportion of media has done it. That's the whole point of WP:UNDUE. If we use this quote, what's there to prevent adding quotes by parents of other victims? (like here ).--DreamLinker (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For a quote it need not to be covered by various media, a quote is made infront of a single media person and other media may not be present there and other media maynot quote from NDTV video directly but included in own words. Secondly, its clearly mentioned in the para that a lot of victims family have blamed him and for that its makes more interesting for an article to include such quote. Finally, here are again two more article The Scroll, The Diplomat defining the quote. And there is absolutely no undue weight in mentioning a quote on the person who is reposible in inciting the violence. As mentioned above both Supreme Court and High Court has taken cognizance of such imflammatory speech and sought action from police. Dey subrata (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Both the articles you linked do not use the quote. Instead they summarise the information, which is what Wikipedia should do as well. Sure some family members have blamed Mishra, but we don't selectively put an allegation word for word and place it prominently as quote (unless the quote itself is notable). As for its clearly mentioned in the para that a lot of victims family have blamed him and for that its makes more interesting for an article to include such quote, we don't do this kind of sensationalism on Wikipedia. If we do this, why don't we add quotes by parents of another victim who might have alleged someone else as the culprit? Are some victims more important that others after all? Summarising and presenting information is OK, selectively taking an allegation and putting it up prominently is not. As for the court, it asked the police to register and FIR, it did not pass any judgement about the person responsible.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Citing this quote is VERY IMPORTANT here as it demonstrates that the New Delhi media's claim of this being a "Hindu-Muslim" riot is wrong. The person quoted falls into New Delhi's category of "Hindu", but is clearly a lower-caste Non-Brahmin. This quote shows that Non-Brahmins, OBCs, SC/STs (including Dalits), and non-Hindi communities are opposed to the hate-mongering of the Hindi Parivar. Kapil Mishra, who incited the violence, is a member of the Brahmin caste and is reportedly Brahmin Supremacist as well. This issue has to be mentioned. This quote demonstrates Non-Brahmin opposition to Kapil Mishra's racism and Brahmin Supremacism. I agree it should be kept as is to underscore this fact. WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree, WashingtonPrime has also added some very good points in addition to what was already said above to keep the quote.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Support removal. Many reasons: This quote is selectively chosen from an unreliable source. Is against BLP policies such as BLPBALANCE. Manual of Style is against colored background for quotations. M4DU7 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The Quote by the Father of Rahul Solanki ,is highlighted in the Quote Box. However the same by the father of Ankit Sharma is missing. Kindy add the portrait of Tahir Hussain and the Quote too. Why is a different treatment being meted out here ? Lets remain Neutral to the true values of Wikipedia. WP:DISPUTE https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/tahir-hussain-behind-ankit-sharmas-death-body-thrown-from-mosque-into-drain-father-alleges-in-fir/558746 Malabarspices (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have missed a point earlier, the quote is kept also for the reason beign, it simply align with the cause of the riots. His did not say anything different from the reason or cause of the eruption of this riot. 's argument seems a total bogus, primary and reliable sources are added and second, colored background a cause of removal ?? I don't want to say anything else. "father of Ankit sharma" has given another statement, where claimed attacked by right wing mob, check at the concerning section above and also does not match with "cause of this incitement" that is hate speech and provocative speech, Tahrir Hussain did not cause this violence,he did not bring a mob in NE Delhi, and gave a provocative speech there, did not threatedned police that he wil take law on his own hand. Use rationale not just bogus arguments. Its like saying, I drank an extra litre of water today, and my friends are feeling hydrated. Dey subrata (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * None of that is a reason to keep this quote. On Wikipedia we go by WP:WEIGHT and I do not see sources quoting this quote in proportion.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Human rights session
In 43rd Human rights session, Human Rights High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet also raised the concern on violence and inaction of police during the riots. She said: “Indians in huge numbers, and from all communities, have expressed – in a mostly peaceful manner – their opposition to the Act, and support for the country’s long tradition of secularism. I am concerned by reports of police inaction in the face of attacks against Muslims by other groups, as well as previous reports of excessive use of force by police against peaceful protestors.”

DBigXray Please suggest if we could add this? Rashid Jorvee (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * ✔️ This is already added in the response section. I had added it. Please check. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Grave concern over Delhi riot
Can it be added on reaction portion? S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * S. M. Nazmus Shakib, Already added at North_East_Delhi_riots. You can expand it if needed. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  08:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2020
The line "In the ensuing violence that went on for several days, 42 people were killed most of whom were Muslims" needs to be changed to "In the ensuing violence that went on for several days, 42 people were killed". Moreover, the cited source is an op-ed, which refers to another source that lacks the information apparently being cited by the author. Historycorrector99 (talk) 07:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The content is factual and reliably sources, Please provide evidence that most of the killed were not Muslims. if you want this to be removed.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Time reference given is an opinion, and the NDTV link given in the Time reference nowhere mentions "most of whhom were Muslims", please see 47.31.163.21 (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please tell me how many of the 42 were Hindus and How many were muslims. I am sure you can count and tell me.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  08:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * you did not answer that no "most of whhom were Muslims" such thing in the NDTV link
 * If not sure why did its written here "most of whom were Muslims" 47.31.163.21 (talk) 08:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * because it is sourced to TIME and factual. and you have not provided any source that says it is not correct. NDTV is a wP:REF for other part of the sentence.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  08:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is sourced to the Time is an opinion and only 42 killed is backed by NDTV not the "mostly muslims", please see2405:204:3323:9B54:880C:1897:99BC:DE8B (talk) 08:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof lies on the person claiming that majority of the killed were Muslims, which the cited op-ed fails to do. Historycorrector99 (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: content is cited, and no WP:Reliable source was provided to claim otherwise.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What is sourced to the Time is an opinion and only 42 killed is backed by NDTV not the "mostly muslims", please see 47.31.191.212 (talk) 08:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstpost claims "Of the deceased, 15 were Muslims and 10 were Hindus, while the religious identities of the others is not clear.". Can you now fix the content? Or is an op-ed more reliable in your opinion? Historycorrector99 (talk) 09:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Historycorrector99, Thanks, your ref, supports the content in the article that "most dead were Muslims". I have added this as a ref in the article. %%% ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  09:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Does not, 15 Muslims and 10 Hindus, how most muslims? 2405:204:3323:9B54:4957:F10B:C46D:B495 (talk) 09:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * because 15 > 10 . No ? This is the silliest comment on the entire thread. Please see WP:CIR  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  09:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Does > with difference of 5 reflects most?, thanks for silly label, welcome 2405:204:3323:9B54:4957:F10B:C46D:B495 (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It does.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  09:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not call that silly, but "in your opinion". 2405:204:3323:9B54:AC73:9DD8:1917:2285 (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but are we even reading the same text? If 15 dead were Muslim, 10 dead were Hindus, then 17 dead belong to an unknown faith. Which means we cannot even claim that more muslims were killed in the riots. Oh God, how can a moderator be so incompetenet? Is basic arithmetic beyond you, sir?
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Here is a list released 3 hours back. Please check.   ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  09:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * List of dead released on 28
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  10:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Done. We don't need consensus to avoid OR. With 17 unknown, and the known difference only five apart, either religion might have lost more. Find a source saying "mostly x", or just don't write it. Easy standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Print 15 Muslims and 11 Hindus identified. and if Amaan is taken to be Hindu then 14 to 12 .please see https://theprint.in/india/list-of-those-killed-in-delhi-communal-riots/372170/ 2405:204:3323:9B54:AC73:9DD8:1917:2285 (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * see the list 2 hours back. https://thewire.in/communalism/delhi-riots-identities-deceased-confirmed  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  10:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The list does not say or justify "most muslims". 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't say "Muslim", period. Done again. Think first, DBX. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The CBS source says "There has been no official breakdown of the casualty figures, but local reports suggest the majority of the dead and injured are Muslims." what local reports?, still there is a fine difference between connotation of "majority" and connotations of "most"

The local reports does not justifly or say "most muslims". 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 11:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also just a suggestion that includes injuries. Think first, DBX. Done again. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"WP:BURDEN has been met, enough sources stating the text. please stop this whitewashing"
 * No source says most muslims, just a opinion and a report which says according to local reports, what report? not given, local reports do not say that "Most of Muslims"
 * removing "Most of Muslims" Whitewashing, really? 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * here is another quote.


 *  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  12:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, do not contradict yourself, the Wire source says, 15-11, this says almost all muslims? Local reports vs foriegn media?2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "majority". Let us move on, people. There is more to do than to quibble over this wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the sourcing doesn't seem good for either wording. The original poster is correct that the Time source is an op-ed, by Rana Ayyub, and, if used, should be used with attribution. The other sources don't seem to include supporting text; and the The Wire, which suggests 15 (of 37) have been identified as Muslim directly contradicts "a majority" or "mostly", and "almost all". Pending better sourcing, this text should stay out. - Ryk72 talk 13:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The wire lists the name of 19 Muslims out of 28.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I mixed The Wire and FirstPost, the latter of which has Of the deceased, 15 were Muslims and 10 were Hindus, while the religious identities of the others is not clear. 15 is not a majority of the 37 mentioned in that source, nor of the current total of 42. The Wire has a list of names, about which we might make educated guesses, but does not itself include any text specifying the religion of the victims. Also, 19 is not a majority of 42. - Ryk72 talk 13:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, The Firstpost is dated older than the wire source. Only 28 seem to have been identified, hence the list. I dont think we should get into the counting. We go by what the reliable sources are stating. 19 of 28 is clearly the majority. which confirms the line used in RS.  has updated the word and I am ok with the new wording.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  13:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which text from The Wire (or FirstPost) supports the underlined portion of our article text: In the ensuing violence that went on for several days, 42 people were killed, a majority of whom were Muslims.? What text in that source identifies 19 as Muslim? The Wire doesn't even include the word "Muslim". And, what does "19 of 28" matter, when our article is discussing 42 people? And We go by what the reliable sources are stating. isn't really an argument when the objection is that the sources don't say what our article does. - Ryk72 talk 14:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The wording of "most" and "majority" were discussed on the number of victims identified above: 15 vs. 10. Two reliable sources: Guardian and TIME said "almost all" and "most". I have changed it to "majority" based on the above numbers. Please don't push it now. If not all victims haven't been identified, it doesn't follow that all the unidentified victims will turn out to be Hindu. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Similarly, it also doesn't follow that they will turn out to be Muslim. We simply do not know. We have sources which say that there are 42 victims. We have sources which say 15 have been identified as Muslim. We have original research based on a list of names that 19 were Muslim. What we do not have is a source which supports our article text - which says that a majority of the 42 were Muslim. It may turn out that they were. It may even be likely to turn out that they were. But currently it is not supported by reliable sources. - Ryk72 talk 14:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot take "15 vs 10" and extrapolate to say "a majority of the 42". We might be able to say something about a majority of the 25 (15 + 10), but I'm struggling to work out how to word that - because "a majority of those identified as having a religion" sounds contrived, and leads the reader to question "well, how many were identified as having a religion?". And also to work out how it will stand the test of time; NOTNEWS et al. A definitive answer will be reached, as & when more of the victims are identified; we can include that information when it is available. - Ryk72 talk 14:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Time source is an op-ed. Almost all from The Guardian is directly contradicted by the other sources. If the identification of victims in those sources is to be believed, and 10 were Hindu (and likely at least one Sikh), then mathematically it cannot be more than about 75%. It can, however, be less than 50%; and therefore may not be a majority. Per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, why do we not wait to find out? - Ryk72 talk 14:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say the remaining victims will turn out to be Muslim. Please don't put up strawmen to demolish them.
 * I have simply watered down a description used in reliable sources to something more in line with the available evidence. Extrapolation of this kind, which apparently troubles you, is done in social sciences all the time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not say the remaining victims will turn out to be Muslim. And I did not say that anyone did say that. I said that it is something that we cannot assume; just as we cannot assume they will turn out to have been Hindu. For completion, I'll add that we also can't assume that there will continue to be a 60/40 split, or anything at all about the victims whose religion is not yet reported. We simply do not know. I did not feel strawmanned by the statement that it doesn't follow that all the unidentified victims will turn out to be Hindu; because it's not something that I did assume, and I accept on good faith that it doesn't imply that I had. Extrapolation of this kind, which apparently troubles you, is done in social sciences all the time. Extrapolation of this kind does not trouble me, when done by reliable sources. When done by Wikipedia editors, however, it is original research. So, which text, from which sources supports our article text, that states categorically that a majority of the 42 victims were Muslim? - Ryk72 talk 15:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed TheWire source because it constituted original research. While I left the FirstPost citation in place for now, I have my doubts about the utility of a source that shows a majority out of 25 when the total is 42. If there are better sources, we shouldn't be using these ones. L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 18:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A shooter named Shahrukh (a muslim protester)
Why u have not mentioned the name of shooter? (unsigned by unknown)
 * see thread above. %%%  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  11:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)