Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 20

Misleading/Incomplete lede
The lede states "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". This tells only one side of the story - Hindu victims too were slashed with repeated blows or set on fire. This article by the Wire gives a breakdown of all those killed by name, religion, age and also how they were killed.

Some examples of Hindus who were shot, slashed or set on fire:
 * Dilbur Negi a shopkeeper was burnt alive.
 * Ankit Sharma was slashed to death (51 stab wounds)
 * Vinod Kumar was burnt to death

More sources:
 * Deccan Herald: Man burnt alive by Muslim mob targeting Hindu properties during Delhi violence: Police tells court
 * The Week: Vegetable seller was shot dead
 * HT: Ankit Sharma stabbed 51 times

Can we reword the lede to make it clear that victims, irrespective of religion were killed via burning, slashing or bullets? Padurina (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying this shouldn't be done, but it's worded that way due to the prior sentence("caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims"). As I understand it, it is not known that the Hindu victims were killed by Muslims. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is known though that there were revenge attacks by Muslim mobs on Hindus. See this report Padurina (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that no Hindus were killed by Muslims, but is it known that every Hindu victim was? 331dot (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How about the next sentence "The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted" be reworded to say "The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or repeatedly slashed or burnt to death." Padurina (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that would be okay, with a citation. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Those are not reliable third-party sources listed in the talk page archives, which formed the basis of a carefully worded lead that has survived more or less intact for three and a half years. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way, Padurina.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read, WP:ONUS, which is Wikipedia policy. Please read WP:BRD which is sound advice for interaction.  Please also read the old essay WP:Lead fixation  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think I don't know about Indian sources, please read the closing administrator's remarks in Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_287 for an example. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, India does not have a strong history of press freedom(reading about The Emergency (India) is interesting) and with regards to this specific event the Indian government pressures the media to report its narrative(See this and here) so we will need a more independent source, probably from outside India. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both your sources are excellent ones, 331dot. My replies above, btw, were not to you but to the editor Padurina.
 * The third-party sources are listed in archive 17:Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_17
 * One source Padurina cites, the Deccan Herald, is not really the Herald, but the Indian government press agency (Press Trust of India, or PTI) feed and it doesn't have a byline. And that PTI article dated June 4, 2020 begins with, "Delhi Police told a court here on Thursday that a man was allegedly burnt alive inside his sweets-shop when a Muslim mob targeted properties of Hindus during the communal violence in northeast Delhi in February."  It is the same police that our lead (citing third-party sources) says was thought to have either turned a blind eye to the anti-Muslim violence or encouraged the violence.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I know, I was just adding on. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's quite interesting how you totally ignore the main source that was used to indicate that Hindu victims were also shot or repeatedly slashed or burnt to death. The main source for that is The Wire (India). This is the same publication that is repeatedly used across the article. The Wire is an award winning new outlet that is known for its aggressive coverage of the current Indian Govt ruled by BJP at a time when mainstream media is failing to do so.
 * I don't see what your problem is with the edit? Are you saying Hindu victims were not shot or repeatedly slashed or burnt to death?
 * It seems like you are trying hard to stonewall any changes to the article and your attitude reeks of ownership.
 * PS: Thanks for sending me links to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS. I would suggest you read them yourself. BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Padurina (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Wire article is not really an article, mostly only a primary source. It states at the end, The following are the particulars of the 53 persons killed as per an affidavit filed by the Delhi Police in W.P (C) 566 of 2020 It doesn't have a byline; it says only The Wire Staff.  It is not suitable for a qualitative description of the violence that you are attempting to employ it for.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, as I've already pointed out, your Deccan Herald article is a government press agency feed, also anonymous. More significantly though, you have changed a sentence:
 * "The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted." cited to an article by Joanna Slater, who at the time was the Washington Post's India bureau chief in Delhi, which had a precise quote, to
 * "The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or repeatedly slashed or burnt to death."
 * Using the "quote" argument in the citation template can you kindly add the precise quotes in references [2], [3], and [4] above, so we can examine the accuracy of your paraphrasing? Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the "slashed" phrasing may not be accurate; should probably be replaced with "stabbed". Minor change but better sourced. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide the quotes for each of the sources [2], [3], and [4] that will allow us to make the paraphrase: "The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or repeatedly stabbed or burnt to death."  Thank you.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Source [4] only supports what happened to the intelligence person. [4] is Hindustan Times, IB staffer Ankit Sharma, killed in Delhi riots, was stabbed 51 times: Police chargesheet. This says: Intelligence Bureau staffer Ankit Sharma, who was found dead during the riots in North-East Delhi in February this year, was stabbed 51 times, the Delhi Police’s Crime Branch said in its chargesheet filed on Wednesday. But then the article contradicts itself and says: The police chargesheet said that during post-mortem, the doctors found 51 sharp and blunt injuries on Sharma’s body. i.e. the 51 injuries were a mixture of sharp injuries (stabs and cuts) and blunt injuries (where he had been injured with blunt objects). Sharma’s body was found in a drain ... It had “multiple abrasion... deep cuts... by sharp edge objects”. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Seems like the 51 stabs was a misreading in the header, by taking "51 sharp" and "blunt" separately, though it still supports the stabbing portion, which is what the request was IG. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No it does not. It only supports what happened to the intelligence person. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which the sentence includes... Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Source [3] says that one man (Dilbar Negi) was burned to death. Source [3] is Deccan Herald Man burnt alive by Muslim mob targeting Hindu properties during Delhi violence: Police tells court, which says that a mob of Muslim community came from Brijpuri Pulia side in northeast Delhi and started rioting, targeting properties of Hindus and continued torching them till late night on February 24. One of the properties torched by the mob was a shop named Anil Sweets from where the police had recovered the charred body of Negi. It is a reasonable deduction from the article that Dilbar Negi was a Hindu. -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Source [2] is The Wire Delhi Riots Death Toll at 53, Here Are the Names of the Victims. The latest estimated death toll stands at 53, while official records peg it at 44. This has two lists, the second of which gives each victim's religion.  Unhelpfully, the numbering of the two lists is different.  I have combined the two lists into a sortable table below for the 13 victims the police identified as Hindu.  Note that Dilbar Negi (Police List 5) appears twice in The Wire's list at 17 and 36.  In some cases the spelling and the age differs between the two lists.  The list includes a "security assistant with the Intelligence Bureau" and a "police head constable".

-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources support: The dead also included 13 Hindus,[1][2] including a police head constable,[2] and a security assistant with the Intelligence Bureau.[2][4] Of the Hindus killed, four were shot,[2] two stabbed,[2] and one burnt to death.[2][3] -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support: This is a very reasonable proposal. I am fine with this. Padurina (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, IG fine with this wording. Though Im open to considering whether the numbers are relevant, since they dont add up to 13. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is IG CapnJackSp? Pardon my ignorance. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Shorthand for "I guess", you can ignore it too. Wont change the meaning of most sentences. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the work.  Not only are the sources being used by Padurina not the most reliable, but what these sources state is also too assorted to be of any use in ascribing broad qualitative features to the anti-Hindu violence.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Admin user:331dot (though probably not in their capacity as an admin) have already cited two NT Times articles above, written by Pulitzer prize-winning former Delhi bureau chief Jeffrey Gettleman and his team, describing the pressure, both official and officious, under which the Indian press operates. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing to note is that the Delhi riots took place three and a half years ago, a few months before India had its first lockdown. The lockdown in some ways was a boon to WP, for much WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Wikipedia's most reliable form of source,  appeared during this time.  I noticed that over a dozen books published since 2022 by the best-known academic publishers now mention the riots in some form or other.   This embarrassment of scholarly riches will essentially make it all but impossible for editors such as Padurina to make their poorly supported edits to the lead.  I will soon collect the best secondary sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * So, all in all,, your proposed edit is too detailed, too motley, and too assorted, for the kind of double distilled summary style a lead requires. My quick look at the scholarly secondary sources confirms that the anti-Hindu violence was reactive and random. It had none of the featurea of deliberation, not to mention police complicity, that were the hallmarks of the anti-Muslim violence. But it can go into the main body. In fact, it will be very useful there. That is a remarkable table, btw; must have taken quite some work! I would prefer to restore the version of a week or two ago, before Padurina made their edits and wait for something to emerge in the scholarly sources that paints the anti-Hindi violence in broad strokes, i.e. in general terms.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Update  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I meant "anti-Hindu violence." Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit of precision is useful when dealing with potentially inflammatory material. If we accept Source [2]'s lists, then even The Washington Post (Source [1]) is exaggerating, since The Washington Post is saying a policeman and an intelligence person AND more than 12 Hindus. Whereas Delhi Police's version (in Source [2]) has 13 Hindus including the policeman and the intelligence person.
 * Regarding the injuries, both The Washington Post and the text that you queried exaggerated - hence providing numbers. If the article has the quotation from The Washington Post, then Delhi Police's numbers should be there as a counter-balance (WP:NPOV).
 * It is also important not to create a false impression about how much statements are supported by sources. Two of the sources were useful, but only supported information about one person each.  Putting them at the end of a sentence about 13 deaths made it look as though they supported the statement about 13 deaths, which was misleading. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But we cannot summarize primary sources. The Washington Post, on the other hand, can, and three years later the scholarly sources can even more so. I think giving any more length or detail to the anti-Hindu violence will create a false equivalence.  The bottom line is that this was an anti-Muslim riot in which some Hindus also died.  I'm sure I can easily find scholarly sources that state this.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See for example: Geva, Rotem, Delhi reborn: Partition and Nation building in India's Capital, Stanford University Press, 2022, isbn 9781503631199, which says on page 261: While two-thirds of the casualties were Muslims, the police filed charges against mostly Muslim student leaders, activists, and protestors, in what it tagged as “the Delhi riots conspiracy case,” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and protest leaders were in judicial custody for six months.
 * In other words, it is pooh poohing the false equivalence. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the quoted material is relevant to the fact that a certain number of Hindus were killed, and they were killed through stabbing, assault, being shot, and burnt. No one is drawing equivalence here, but obscuring half the story in trying to "prevent" such equivalence would be POV editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which form of WP:SCHOLARSHIP has suggested that the anti-Hindu violence was half the story? Please find me one published by Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Penn, Berkely, or any of the major South Asia studies academic publishers.  Again: one source.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I am confused what edit is being request? Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am arguing that a WP:FALSEBALANCE not be introduced by adding a long list of the forms of violence to which the much smaller number of Hindu were subjected. Ie. we cannot dole out due weight; it has to be done by the sources.  If they pay much less attention to the Hindu victims, then we have to do the same.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no edit being requested by F&F. F&F seems to be on a one-track mission to clutter the talk page with sources that scream 'Muslims were the main victims of violence!' all while I am not even arguing the contrary in this discussion.
 * The real deal? Legit sources are standing tall, boldly stating that victims of the tumultuous event, no matter their religion, died of assault, stabbings, burns, and gunshots. But hold on, F&F seems to have a bone to pick with this reality check. Padurina (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please don't be overly familiar. You know nothing about me, never interacted with me.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Tumultuous?" "Tumultuous" can have a secondary meaning of violent or overwhelming turbulence or upheaval, but it is still disorderly, a far cry from "organized, deathly, violence."
 * Webster's unabridged: : marked by tumult : full of commotion and uproar : riotous, stormy, boisterous
 *  
 * Or OED: Full of tumult or commotion; marked by confusion and uproar; disorderly and noisy; violent and clamorous; turbulent. 1837 Tumultuous noises filled the hall. 1840 The tumultuous advance of the conquering army. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am unsure we need a list of injuries in the lead, for either side. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Slatersteven: The spin of the lead must reflect the consensus of the best sources. On Wikipedia, the scholarly ones, if they are available, are the best. They unanimously describe it as an anti-Muslim riot in which 53 people were killed, most of whom were Muslim. Hindu vigilante groups had license to create mayhem as the police looked the other way.
 * As a large number of academic sources have appeared in the last three years, the lead may need to be revisited. So, I'm not necessarily against your suggestion, but we can't do that in an ad hoc manner as Padurina did, by producing bottom-of-the-barrel sources.
 * We have to examine the current consensus in the best sources. It has to be done methodically.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Most does not equal all; And NPOV does not equal squashing one side of the story to create a false balance. Instead of the article depicting the events as they occurred, you seem obsessed with how it might be perceived, multiple times talking like violence was completely one sided, a claim our article itself debunks. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SOURCETYPES which states, Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
 * Please also read: WP:FALSEBALANCE, which states: 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.
 * Mainstream scholarship is what I propose to document below. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * But right now its sourced to news media, not scholarly sources. I am suggesting we remove text, not add it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is probably best to leave it in the version of two weeks ago (the version in which the article had stood for three years), i.e. the WP:STATUSQUO, while we draft a new lead based in scholarly sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

A secondary source can summarize primary sources in presenting a narrative, especially as the incident of interest is more in the past. See for example:
 * where the author has used an article of Jeffrey Gettleman, the NY Times Delhi bureau chief in 2020. So the scholarly secondary sources use the same third-party sources we have been using in this article thus far. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Jain, Shukla, and Sanyal used the same 53 figure provided by New Delhi Police: 40 Muslims (75%), 13 Hindus (25%). So Jain, Shukla, and Sanyal's claim that two-thirds of the dead were Muslim is wrong; according to New Delhi Police, three-quarters of the dead were Muslims. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Toddy1. The problems is that we can't make judgments about primary sources, i.e. the police records. Secondary sources have appeared.  Per Wikipedia policy, they are the ones we go with.  Primary sources can be used hereafter only to add an illustration or vignette for something that is discussed in the secondary sources. But that is about it. Reliable newspaper stories, especially in major internationally recognized newspapers such as the NYTimes, WaPo, Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Guardian, Independent, Times, London; Le Monde; South China Morning Post; Sydney Morning Herald etc can be used for a little longer (ten years), but they too are more reliable when accompanied by updates in these newspapers or retrospectives. But local press in a highly repressive news atmosphere such as India's has very little reliability.
 * I applaud the work you did with the table. But listing the Hindu casualties in any greater detail than were present in the article's version of two weeks ago, is to give it too much emphasis.  It is simply not there in the reliable sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * PS I do understand that your proposed edit disabuses readers of the idea that Hindu mortality was anywhere near the Muslim both in scale and virulence, but it still gives it "air time," which is inappropriate for the lead, especially when supported by the third-rate sources [2], [3] and [4]. I am sure they won't pass muster at WP:RS/N.  If this impasse continues into more than the middle of next week.  Ill take them to RS/N.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The conviction in court tells a totally different story
The court noted that the main objective of the convicts who joined the unruly mob guided by ‘communal feelings’ was to cause ‘maximum damage to the properties belonging to the people of the Hindu community'.

AAP leader Tahir Hussain was denied bail. The court said there's enough material on record to presume the former councilor was present at the spot of crime and was instigating the rioters. Karkardooma court in Delhi framed murder and conspiracy charges against Aam Aadmi Party leader Tahir Hussain and ten others for the murder of IB officer. While framing the charges, the court observed, “Tahir was continuously acting in a manner of supervising & motivating this mob. All these things were done to target Hindus. Every member of the mob assembled there participated in achieving the objective of targeting Hindus".

Hence, the negativity and misinformation being spread against Hindu community and vilification of it as the aggressor is not justified at all. 174.91.9.67 (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't spread negativity and misinformation, it doesn't vilify anyone, it simply reports what reliable sources say. You, on the other hand, failed to cite any reliable sources whatsoever. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When a court convicts this man, let us know. 331dot (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What will you do? Create another wiki page to whitewash his crimes? 171.76.84.89 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See wp:npa and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Seen. What about it? 171.76.85.204 (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not get to dismiss users, or imply bigotry without good reason (and if you think that you report it at wp:ani). Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What about running to Admins with block requests every time a Moderators fragile ego is hurt? You seem to have a history of doing that and were even warned to tone down the complaints. It's not me, it's your history on Wikipedia that says so. Go to Wikipedia founders now and ask them to read npa and soap 171.76.81.210 (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not users. Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's start with you then 🤷🏻‍♂️ 171.76.81.210 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have no constructive comments to give about this article or its content, then move along and stop harassing Slatersteven. If you have grievances with their behavior, please address them in the appropriate forum(though be aware that your own actions will be examined as well). Thank you. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Reliable Sources" 171.76.84.89 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We will summarize what independent reliable sources say. When a court of law, and not the court of public opinion and religious bigotry, convicts this man of a crime, let us know. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Not sure about IP's claims, but the article does need to be corrected for inaccuracies. The first line itself - "caused" implies causation, and not the description of the event itself, which has been used to justify the sentence. The cause was inflammatory speeches by Hindutva leaders, followed by an attack on a pro-CAA procession. This is noted by our article further down in the lead up to the events. The mass violence was the event itself, not the cause. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Caused as in they did it, but OK how about "carried out by"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it acceptable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The inflammatory speech and the sit-in were the context, or the latent cause, but the manifest cause, or proximate cause were the first incidents several days later in which young men wearing helmets, carrying sticks and shouting the chants of Hindu nationalism began to pull down the pants of Muslims…and toss cooking gas canisters into dwellings … as the police stood by. Have restored the original phrasing. What they were was bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February 2020 and caused (that is, made to happen, effected, set off) chiefly by Hindu gangs attacking Muslims.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * PS I am traveling until July 16 and mostly unavailable. But the phrasing in the lead can’t be changed lightly. A lot of back and forth went into it. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats not the cause, thats the event. By 24th, the riots were in full swing (and the events on 24th were two sided, not "cheifly Hindus attacking Muslims"). 23rd was the lead up, what can be attributed as the cause. The event itself can be accurately described as cheifly Hindus attacking muslims, as sources have done, but it cannot be described as the cause. The citations used there themselves dont support the statement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. As I had collected the sources, comprising over a dozen newspapers, (collected painstakingly in the archives of this page, I will be happy to take another look when I return home.

Carried out,” is highly problematic. It asserts that the bloodshed, the slashing, the lacerated genitalia, the beating of people to death, the brazen brutality—similar to the Gujarat program of 2002—were also displayed by Muslims. But the Muslims didn’t pull down any pants. They didn’t toss cooking gas canisters into Hindu temples, businesses or homes. Not a single instance. The injuries they did inflict were caused by returning fire or cross fire with the police. Highly, highly problematic. More after the 16th. All the very best   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to wait (till the 16th of August I assume, not july), but it seems like a non issue here. By your own explanation of the reading of "caused" ("effected, made to happen"), it is much more accurate to refer to it as "carried out" than use the phrasing of "caused", which can be incorrectly be read as the underlying reason for the violence.The objection about it being problematic is a non issue - Saying "carried out chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" does not in any way imply what sort of violence was committed by anyone. The next line clarifies whatever issues you might have. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * PS : Though this is irrelevant to the issue, your reading as the violence being completely one sided is wrong. Mobs chanting "Allahu Akbar" did slash and beat people to death. Even on 25th, there was an attack from Muslim mobs using petrol bombs, stones, and guns, on Hindu residential areas; and a journalist was shot from a group he described as anti CAA protestors. All these are quoted from our article itself and from sources describing them. While the violence can be correctly described as being majorly hindu on muslim, arguing that the violence by muslims was all in self defence is a blatantly incorrect reading of reliable sources. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Heh! People are using too much of their brains on Wikipedia, let's knock them back to the reality that we are just petty content adders. I support whoever that writes based on what reliable sources explicitly state, without unloading their own s***. Imaginie (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No one is saying it was just Hindoos, but we go with what RS say. No we do not use our brains (also called wp:or), we use RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The RS cited for the sentence dont say that Hindu violence caused the riots. The sentence you and I agreed on was fair enough, will still wait to see Fowlers response. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * After having a read of the two articles purportedly supporting the statement in question, I have come to agree with Captain Jack Sparrow. The Guardian noted that the violence was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims and the NYT had derailed into BJP's career history, neither of which mentioned Hindu mobs as the causation of riots. How do you know the riots weren't "caused chiefly" by Muslim mobs attacking Kshatriyas as in this instance? Imaginie (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it is talking about one person. IN fact neither the word Muslim or Hindoo appears in that article, in fact it goes to great lengths to not apportion blame (please read wp:v and wp:or). Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Jesus! That was a demonstration of OR. Imaginie (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK then, provide the quote that I missed that says anything like " "caused chiefly" by Muslim mobs attacking Kshatriyas", hell lets make it even easier, provide a quote where it even uses the word Muslim? Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not your words brother, I meant what I had said was OR. IMHO, we do not know what the "chief cause" is. Imaginie (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, is there an alternate proposal to the "carried out by" wording by @Slatersteven or Imaginie? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, we are both with you and still debating about something that I seem to have lost track of rn. Pls ignore my rambling. Imaginie (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fowler&fowler, while I accept your request to wait till the 16th till you have more time, it seems a bit weird for you to revert additions that are 1)well sourced from RS and 2)Clearly necessary, as the section lacks updates post 2020. Instead of just reverting, you could instead state how you would prefer the wording. That would not take up any more time than the lengthy edit summaries. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot, on a cell phone on which I have already run up a big bill using cellular data. The entire section needs to be reduced to a tenth of its length if not reduced more, its due weight consistent with coverage in third-party major international newspapers most of which have New Delhi bureaus. What a judge rules in an Indian court in the conviction of three individuals with recognizably Muslim names has weight in this article if and only if the decision has received reasonable coverage in the third-party international media and then what appears in the Indian newspapers of record (listed in the relevant talk page editing guidelines of this page) can be employed for no more than supplementing with minor details or occasional vignettes the summary of the international coverage.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree on quite a few counts, but since you have talked about issues in discussion, Ill put them off till 16th. Good day. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies and .  I forgot all about this discussion.  "Cause (verb)" is meant in the meaning of "transitive. to effect, bring about, produce, induce, make" (OED)  The sentence in place, "caused chiefly," thus has the meaning of "brought about chiefly," or "produced chiefly."  In describing culpability, it is more fluid,  lying vaguely somewhere in the continuum between "instigated chiefly" and "carried out chiefly."
 * I suggest that we not worry too much about that lead sentence. For the perspective in the new secondary sources, some of which I have collected below, seems to be changing. The lead sentence in a revised version, therefore, might be somewhat different, even quite different.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Why stick with the ambiguity when we have a better phrase? The wobbly argument that it might be sufficient is insufficient to oppose a better phrase. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence has: "... 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." How do you carry out a wave of bloodshed?  A wave is not really a task, order, or threat. "Caused," which is used in the meaning of "brought about," is just fine, at least for now, i.e. until the new sources are gathered, sifted, and summarized.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you can you can have waves of violence, waves of bloodshed []. But we can use caused as well. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean that "waves of violence or of bloodshed" can't happen, only how can you carry them out, i.e. perform them or put them into action? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Waves of bloodshed" constitutes a set of acts, that was carried out by a group. Caused can be ambiguously read as being the initiator of the events being referred to, which is inaccurate.What the first sentence can also be read as, as framed right now, is "The 2020 Delhi riots were caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", which isnt supported by the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They are not a set of acts. They are surges of violence or bloodletting.  They can't be carried out, i.e. (OED) "transitive. To bring (something) to completion or fruition; to bring to a conclusion. Also: to put (something) into action or practice; to cause (something) to be implemented; to undertake."
 * If you don't like "caused," you can use "brought about," but "carried out" is not correct in this context. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hindus planned the riots, Hindus engaged in the bloodletting and property destruction, and Hindus gloated about it. The new sources collected below bear that out even more. You'll be wasting your time and mine if you attempt to go down that path.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I value Indian media more than the so-called "international newspapers" for their specialty on India-related topics. The cases involving the murder of government officials working for the internal safety and security of the nation are too significant to be left out. Imaginie (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not a single instance" of Muslim mob violence is blatantly false. See this instance. Padurina (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)