Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 5

Patent baisness
While "AAP leader Sanjay Singh, released a video in which BJP MLA from Laxmi Nagar, Abhay Verma was seen leading crowds that raised slogans "Police ke hatyaaron ko, goli maaro saalon ko (transl. Shoot the people, who murdered the policeman)"," is mentioned despite so many allegations, videos, FIRs and AAP membership suspension nothing related to Tahir Hussain is mentioned. 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It the article very emphasized on majority of victims were Muslims. But no independent source support. It seems writer of the article is narrating his feelings. Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I quote from this oped on The Print. "Over forty persons dead. Both Hindus and Muslims, almost in equal measure. What is worse is the horror of several unidentified dead, in fact, close to a third of them, listed simply as “unknown”. "

Also any Indian can easily make out the religion from seeing the names of the victims. I hate to do this but since the line is indicating bias to I checked and yes almost same number of both religion killed. Shubham2019 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Allah O Akbar is used in violence as a weapon in case our writers were born yesterday. Terrorists blow themselves up chanting Allah o Akbar. Equivalence applies, if anything Jai Shri Ram is associated with less cases of violence as opposed to Allah o Akbar. Shubham2019 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on March 1 2020
Riot means disturbance of peace.All incidents of riots small or large that happened in NE Delhi over CAA should be included in timeline. Please include this incident in timeline:-

On Jan 19 2020, Clash erupted between anti-CAA protesters and Kashimir Hindu Pandits on the 30th anniversary of Hindu Pandit genocide in Kashmir. (1) [(Redacted Opindia citation) (2)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedpov (talk • contribs) 17:53 March 1, 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page North East Delhi riots. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. qedk (t 桜 c) 19:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am providing clear evidence that incident happened in North East Delhi at ground 0 of riots. This is the right article and right talk page. Please see the links. Unbiasedpov (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not reliable sources. This is not the article relating to all riots, only the ones from 23 February. Further POV-pushing will result in sanctions. qedk (t 桜 c) 19:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ishrat Jahan arrest
Please add to the list of those arrested for stoking violence.

Bail denied for Congress Party councillor Ishrat Jahan. Charges on her include rioting and attempt to murder. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/feb/28/delhi-riots-court-rejects-bail-plea-of-arrested-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-ishrat-jahan-2109944.html Gayatri 02:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayatri9876 (talk • contribs)
 * AGREE*- Prominent arrests should be mentioned if something is not mentioned.Edward Zigma (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

1RR and now BRD are being imposed at this article, so let us get a consensus before we add anything. I propose, "Sabu Ansari, Khalid and Ex-Congress Councillor Ishrat Jahan have been booked for offences under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 353 (assault on public servant), 332 (voluntarily causes hurt to public servant), 307 (attempt to murder), 109 (abetment), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC and relevant sections of the Arms Act. A Delhi court rejected their bail plea."
 * ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , please comment!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 02:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I am okay with this. 02:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayatri9876 (talk • contribs)
 * I also support addition since this is covered by the mainstream news sources.[ https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/ishrat-jahan-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-arrested-for-inciting-violence-during-delhi-riots-593664][ https://www.abplive.com/videos/news/former-congress-councilor-ishrat-jahan-arrested-1315286] Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 02:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am also in favor of adding content about this incident per above.  M L 911 04:00, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok, not sure if all the IPC sections are important, though. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I got a ping from User:Spasiba5 about this. The sources look reliable to me, so this can be added here. But where should the proposed text be added in the article, I mean in which section/subsection? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 05:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact that they are arrested should of course be mentioned, but the charges are not described at the right level. Here is for example a better source:

, can you take a look? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , I would like to stress that WIkipedia is not newspaper. WE do not write everything that papers are printing. We also need to follow WP:BLPNAME with regard to non notable people. Newspapers obviously have no WP:BLPNAME restrictions. More than 700 people have been arrested. And according to Wikipedia all these people who do not have their own article qualify for WP:BLPNAME. The international media are not covering this incident on Jahan, and I can understand that this news lacks significance.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  08:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If Ishrat Jahan can not be mentioned, we should remove references to Kapil Mishra also since he has not been convicted or found guilty and WIkipedia is not a newspaper!&mdash;Spasiba5 (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The court's orders and the charges pressed in the cases should be given more importance than personal beliefs about the criminal involvement of an accused. Let us add these details (regarding Ishrat Jahan) and update them according to the rulings of the court. Involvement of Kapil Mishra is so explicitly implied in this page. I think we should hold our horses there and mention that 'so and so person alleged him to be responsible'.Trojanishere (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere

Azuredivay (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC) As per the sources above, the information should have a separate paragraph for sure. Agree with Spasiba here.

, you first added this text to "Incitement" (with quotation marks) and now you added it to the lead (without quotation marks):

What makes you think this belongs in the lead? I have cited a Scroll.in source that has also covered their arrest. Have you looked at it, and if so, how did you take it into account? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Why is timeline starting on Feb 23
CAA Riots started in NE delhi in Dec 2019 why is timeline starting on a random date of Feb 23? What is so special about Feb 23? As per Wikipedia guideline, Timeline should start when the 1st event occurred. [|See reference] Unbiasedpov (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No. Of victims and their religion
The victims in the riots were not predominantly Hindu or Muslim. Both were killed almost in equal numbers. The list of victims has almost equal number of Hindu and Muslim names. I suggest remove the line which says 42 people were killed mostly muslims to "42 people were killed with almost equal number of deaths from Hindu and Muslim community. " Shubham2019 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * , the source does not say anywhere, about equal numbers you are claiming. Please provide a  reliable source to verify your claim. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  16:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, Only op-eds say majority muslims, NDTV source only gives count or the Wire list only gives names,no source say majority dead muslims. 47.31.154.216 (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * see discussion above. and the sources. CBS, guardian are not oped. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  17:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * DBigXray please check niether CBS nor Guardian link given says so. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * refs are also listed in the article. u can click to see them.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked nowhere the CBS or the Guardian links writes so. 2405:204:3318:B8D4:8957:E684:E91F:592F (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please also see The Print "Over forty persons dead. Both Hindus and Muslims, almost in equal measure. What is worse is the horror of several unidentified dead, in fact, close to a third of them, listed simply as “unknown”. https://theprint.in/opinion/lies-are-the-staple-of-every-communal-disturbance-and-delhi-riots-are-no-different/373589/ 2405:204:3318:B8D4:F850:AF06:7EBF:D5F2 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the CBS News source (which is outdated) is basing its information on unspecified local sources and provides no further evidence to support its claim that the majority of casualties are Muslims. The Guardian article does not indicate that a majority of deaths were Muslim. Are these sources really good enough to support what we are claiming in the lead? L EPRICAVARK ( talk ) 21:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the wording a bit to make clear that we are not doing an accounting here. The journalists have given their impressions based on what they witnessed. We can't use half-baked "evidence" to contradict them. Until there is a full investigation by somebody, we have to leave it at that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No leading news agency has given the count of death by religion rather count of death only since the list of name of victims and their religion is not yet available in public domain. Please note this clash originated not as Hindu-Muslim rather pro-CAA and anti-CAA and people from all religions are on both sides so refrain from communalising it further. Suggesting contributor's to tone down their language to neutral rather than communal unless there is credible fact to support. DBigFacts (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The wiki article on Delhi Riots is wrong and misleading
How can you it say that hindu attacked Muslims when Its now clear that muslims have acid bag, petrol bombs, stones at their homes and major Muslim leader committed crime. Name :Tahir Hussain( wanted and currently absconding) Krish013 (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's not make this about biased opinions. Stick to facts. There's been damage from both sides. Deepsea20 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

What about the young Hindu girls who were raped and thrown in the drain Deepsea20 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article
https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/delhi-violence-riots-death-toll-6294461/ &#x222F; WBG converse 15:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not fully aware of the intricate chronological details of the riot/pogrom but my overall sentiments fairly align with Varshney. When we are mentioning JSR/saffron flags, we ought to also mention about Muslim mobs crying Allahu Akbar (see reports by The Wire on the very first two days) ; the initial aggressor is difficult to pinpoint and it indeed seemed like a communal riot for around the first couple of days before state-complicity rendered it one-sided. Reading the current lead, there is a distinct feeling that it was entirely perpetuated by Hindu nationalist mobs on largely-ideal Muslim victims, which I don't deem to be true. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is an op-ed. Can you find some better sources? If yes, let's make a draft and add it after achieving consensus. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not touching this article in any extensive manner unless a few months pass and facts become more clear. Maybe, and  have some idea on using this piece, and whether my broader points are correct.  &#x222F; WBG converse 06:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't want to be active editor on this article due to outing and off-wiki harassment. Like, Prakash Javadekar did press conference after Sonia Gandhi and alleged AAP-Congress for it; this was missing. Another point missing was refutation of allegations by Kapil Mishra and . There are significant gaps; I am just addressing gaps here.- Harshil want to talk? 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Truncated timeline & limited geography makes this article present POV and OR narrative
note: Some of this point had limited discussions in talk pages but it needs larger set of editors to chime in.

Article suffers from several peculiar omission violating NPOV and ends up creating original research narrative due to following reasons:

1) Wrong Timeline: Editors are insisting that timeline must start on Feb 23rd 2020. Incidents which happened in same locality with same issue & same set of actors,before Feb 23rd 2020 should not be included in the article. There is no explanation on Feb 23 2020. For example,Editor wrote "This is not the article relating to all riots, only the ones from 23 February. In another example, Editor wrote "timeline section is designated for February 23-future".

2) Truncated Geography: All wikipedia articles about india riots cover entire geographic area which comes under jurisdiction. Examples: "1992 Bombay riots" or "2002 Gujarat Riots" but [|"2020 New Delhi violence"] redirects to [|"North East Delhi riots"]; Thus, Omitting major riots incidents which occurred in South delhi & other areas.All this riots have same underlying cause and same set of protesters, counter-protesters and organizer under same delhi commissioner jurisdiction. Even the persons arrested in south delhi riots are connected with north-east delhi protest/counter-protest and vice-verse.

3) Original research "title & timeline":- Popular media title is "Delhi violence". See examples: https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-violence-day-6-live-updates/article30939906.ece https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-northeast-violence-maujpur-babarpur-jaffrabad-mustafabad-6293445/ https://www.ndtv.com/topic/delhi-violence. Only wikipedia has original research title "NE Delhi riots". Redirecting "2020 New Delhi Riots" to filtered set of events meeting specific geographic and date is POV.

Questions:-

1) Does the choice of smaller geography, arbitrary timeline, and name of article meet wikipedia standard of NPOV & "No original Research"?

2) Is the timeline meeting the dictionary meaning of word timeline?

3) Should "2020 Delhi Riots" redirect to "North East Delhi Riots"? If not either current-article should be expanded and renamed to "Delhi Violence" or a new article titled "Delhi Violence" should be created.

Inviting all editors to discuss

Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes it has been nine days. Riots were under control on 27 February. Shubham2019 (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There's already a discussion on "End date", please contribute there. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the article written by foreign media are too biased while they mention about Hindu mob but totally ignore what muslim mob have done. So it is necessary to add what Indian media have written. Dev0745 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think the article written by foreign media are too biased while they mention about Hindu mob but totally ignore what muslim mob have done. So it is necessary to add what Indian media have written. Dev0745 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Dev0745 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a pogrom
According to Cambridge dictionary

A pogrom is an organized killing of a large group of people, esp. Jews, because of their religion or race https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/pogrom

What happened in Delhi can in no way be classified as a pogrom especially when there were equal number of deaths on both sides. Kunapulir (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In the context of this article, the word pogrom is clearly inflammatory. We must therefore be certain that its use is justified by WP:RS. As it now stands, the Infobox parameter "methods" lists pogrom, and Category:Pogroms is affixed to the bottom of the page. There is no direct reference to support either of these uses. Instead, the Bibliography includes an article from ThePrint website: "The Delhi pogrom 2020 is Amit Shah's answer to an election defeat". As its tendentious title suggests, this is opinion, not news reportage, and indeed the piece is clearly labeled Opinion in a red box atop the headline. Shivam Vij, a contributing editor at ThePrint, is entitled to express his opinion. However, we at Wikipedia are not obligated to accept it as dispositive. Accordingly, I am purging the word pogrom from our article, and removing Shivam Vij's editorial from the Bibliography. I request that these edits not be reverted without consensus. NedFausa (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Collins dictionary, an organised violence against group of people for reasons could also be a pogrom. There's nothing totaking it seriously. Until now I have seen enough articles(authentic ones) that most of the places the attacks were organised and selectively shops and houses are burnt. So the word is just to signify that. The use of the word for explaination is just to explain that. Edward Zigma (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * please provide a WP:RS to support using pogrom in this Wikipedia article. The source should quote a social scientist with established expertise in this area, or a government official with first-hand knowledge, etc. An editorialist with a partisan ax to grind is insufficient. NedFausa (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are various articles on this. And various international condemnation from various organisations and personalities has atleast est. a fact by now that violence was one sided. Like OIC condemnation, Iran condemnation . But if you want expert saying it, check this . These things getd deduced.Edward Zigma (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The first two links do not mention pogrom, but the foreignpolicy.com story is exactly what I had in mind. However, despite being prompted to classify the violence in Delhi as a pogrom, Professor Ashutosh Varshney does not do so. None of his direct quotations contain the word pogrom. Accordingly, we cannot use this as a reference without violating WP:SYNTH. NedFausa (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be interested in the following article from The Atlantic written by Mira Kamdar. Kamdar was a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, as well as its acting director, and is currently a faculty member in Journalism at Paris Institute of Political Science.
 * — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's just what we need. Thanks. I'll restore pogrom to the Infobox and category list, with a citation to this source. NedFausa (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * NedFausa It is just an opinion piece. As already clarified above, "pogrom" will require much better sourcing than drive by rumors. I would suggest revert until academics sources or mainstream narrative confirms that this was a pogrom. Wareon (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is not "just" an opinion piece. It is an authoritative assessment by the author of four books on India who has been a member of the Editorial Board of The New York Times (2013–2017), where she wrote on international affairs. Mira Kamdar's work has also appeared around the world, including The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, The Times of India, The International Herald Tribune, Tehelka, and the Far Eastern Economic Review. She has provided expert commentary to CNN International, Bloomberg TV, the BBC, and Radio France, among others. This particular piece is published by The Atlantic, an established WP:RS. If you can cite a source with comparable credentials who has asserted that the North East Delhi riots are not a pogrom, I encourage you to submit it here for consideration. NedFausa (talk) 06:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces are less scrutinized than actual WP:RS. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 07:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely not a pogrom. Whatever be Mira Kamdar's creds, this is highly opinionated and biased piece. Nazis killing thousands of Jews is pogrom, 1984 riots in Delhi were pogrom, not this. Even, 2002 Gujrat riots weren't pogroms. I would encourage Administrator interference for resolution of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawford88 (talk • contribs)
 * Definitely not a pogrom. Whatever be Mira Kamdar's creds, this is highly opinionated and biased piece. Nazis killing thousands of Jews is pogrom, 1984 riots in Delhi were pogrom, not this. Even, 2002 Gujrat riots weren't pogroms. I would encourage Administrator interference for resolution of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawford88 (talk • contribs)


 * Above discussion/references do not substantiate use of pogrom as per wiki rules. --Jaydayal (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It also looks like we're stating an editorial opinion in Wikipedia's voice. I have removed it from the infobox. It's fine if we want to add some prose about who wrote this opinion and why, if the author is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Heres the non opinion news articles you should check. They are calling it pogroms.First ,second, third . There are enough news articles I think. Requesting ,, to take a look a look in this self consensus going on hereEdward Zigma (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I support your decision to add "pogrom" back. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a decision but enough news articles have called it directly now Edward Zigma (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In this journey of POV pushing, what is next? Addition of 'genocide'? Don't try to hammer your nonsense opinion and write a blog if you wish to right great wrong. Wareon (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this POV? News article of HuffingtonPost is directly calling it pogrom.Edward Zigma (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Picking on worst views about the incident by citing opinion piece by HF only because they support your POV - is what you are doing. Wareon (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article I cited is a "News" article, not Opinion. Check it again.It is a news article. Edward Zigma (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And that article cites opinion piece by Atlantic as alternative view. Why you are not getting it? Wareon (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have cited enough news article for now. It would be better now if we let other read those and take a decision.Edward Zigma (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need lousy or dubious attempts to establish a very controversial personal view. Better wait. Wareon (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . HuffPost merely reproduces a pull quote from Mira Kamdar's opinion piece published by The Atlantic. That in no way confers greater reliability on that source. NedFausa (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And how many opinion pieces are needed to call it what it is? As I said there are news articles on this and more than that opinion pieces calling it a pogrom. Its not a news reporting job to declare what it is. As I said this is not your one way consensus going on here. Let other decide.  Edward Zigma (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Edward_Zigma Yes they publish millions of articles about this incident every day and you pick on a single opinion piece every other day which dubiously views incident a 'pogrom'. You could make a better case for calling 9/11 an inside job. Stop canvassing people by sending them ping-based notification just because you believe that they will favor your POV. Wareon (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It is my view, and the view of several experienced editors on this talk page, that there is insufficient information at present to decide it. The Huffington Post article cited above is quite valuable in deciding such things, because it culls what a number of high-quality world newspapers have said about it. The editors who are bad-mouthing the article are exposing their own biases, and need to rethink what exactly they are doing here. But, on the issue itself, we need to wait until more thorough investigations and reports come out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It also mentioned how police were arranging stones for the fringe. Ritik Chandra (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The Neutrality of this article.
While any Wikipedia article is accessed by public. It is expected that it will contain all basic information related to topic. The riots were organised anti-Hindu riots-

The content is highly biased in nature. Hence, we can say that this article is not neutral in any way.

It has been well established by now that the riots were pre-planned. However, it was anti-Hindu in nature.Following incidents prove-:
 * 1) People in Shiv Vihar took away their children from school,soon riots started.
 * 2) Rajdhani school in area owned by minority community member was turned into attack post. To target gullible Hindus. It is alleged that automatic weapons were also fired.
 * 3) Another school just next to Rajdhani school was burnt by rioters. This belonged to a hindu person.
 * 4) 7 truck bricks, petrol bombs,Acid pouches,Slingshots found at Tahir Hussain's house.
 * 5) The drain near Tahir Hussain's house from which several dead bodies had been recovered. Ankit Sharma's body was recovered from this drain.
 * 6) Another dead body of a minor girl was also recovered. All dead bodies did not had any clothes with brutal assault marks and mutilation. As per forensic report Ankit Sharma's body was stabbed 400 times, by atleast 6 people, over 2-3 hours.
 * 7) Its been confirmed by Ankit Sharma's brother that Ankit was dragged by anti-CAA rioters.There is related article published by Wall Street Journal. This is a misleading article. Because, Ankit's brother denied giving any statement to WSJ.
 * 8) Multiple slingshots targeting Hindu community found at multiple sites. These were inspired Syrian conflict. These kind of articles can't be prepared in single day. https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/raining-stones-and-bombs-rioters-used-makeshift-catapults-and-slingshots-to-target-people-watch/558767
 * 9) These riots were not started by Kapil Mishra's speech. The rioters were waiting for Trump's Visit to Delhi. https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi-news/riots-organised-to-defame-india-during-trump-visit-says-bjp-citing-umar-khalid-clip/story-t19i357criz9MNdX0n8XHI.html
 * 10) The rioters were mainly anti-CAA protesters. They were well organised with dangerous materials.
 * 11) It has been found that in multiple minority dominated areas, shops with 'No NRC No CAA' were spared but those without these were burnt.
 * 12) There is widespread one-sided reporting claiming Minority people as victims. But reports of assault on Hindus are being suppressed. None of the mainstream channels visited Hindus for 1st hand accounts of violence.
 * 13) These riots have started as fallout of Anti-CAA protest only.
 * 14) This fact must be noted that once Tahir's role was confirmed in riots, several attempts were made to whitewash his acts. In one of such attempts a backdated video using greenscreen video creation process was made and circulated.
 * 15) A new kind of anti-semitism, anti-Hinduism is being driven by international media.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssvikram (talk • contribs) 05:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * If you have specific changes to suggest, please propose sentences, where they should go, what to change, and what sources to cite. It would be best if you made separate requests. Most of your list above is unsourced. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here :-
 * The police seized petrol bombs, acid, stones and bricks which were allegedly used by rioters during the violence from the house of Tahir Hussain.
 * Tahir Hussain is supposed to have lead a group of 300 to 400 hardcore rioters during the violence.
 * A number of videos surfaced on social media, showing people allegedly throwing petrol bombs and stones from his rooftop, following which the Delhi Police have sealed Hussain's house besides registering a case against him. In one such video, Hussain is seen holding a wooden stick with smoke rising from his building.
 * The police seized crates of petrol bombs from rioters in Mustafabad which indicate that it was a planned conspiracy similar to what happened at the residence of Tahir Hussain.
 * The BJP alleged that the riots were planned so as to defame the country during the visit of US president Donald Trump, citing a speech by former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid.
 * Waris Pathan incited Muslims to turn violent by saying that 15 crore Muslims are more than a match for 100 crore Hindus.
 * Add what you want from these sentences with the cited references!14:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Of all the claims given, this one is the most salient:
 * Tahir Hussain is supposed to have lead a group of 300 to 400 hardcore rioters during the violence.
 * All of the other claims in the proposal are used to arrive at the conclusion given by this one claim. The source you've chosen for this statement suggests that it's synthesis — newslaundry.com — which describes itself as a news, current affairs and media analysis organization. This source is still pending review from Media Bias Factcheck, but I would suggest taking the analysis made by it with a grain of salt. Regards, Spintendo  18:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation given for this statement is WP:FAKE. Newslaundry did not suppose Tahir Hussain led a group. Bein a "Media Analysis" piece, it narrated that Republic TV claimed it. The claim isn't even worth the bits that it is written on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to look this over. I thought it was a good edit request and deserved some attention but I haven't had the time today to examine it in detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It was discussed previously that Tahir Hussain is not notable enough for the incident to be described in such detail on this article while he is still not proven guilty of the alleged crimes. Meanwhile, a neutral POV version of the whole incident exists on my sandbox. SerChevalerie (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Your sandbox looks good enough to transfer to main article. Wareon (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , refer to new discussion Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free-for-all: a message to new users
A few related pointers for new users:


 * 1) Stick to reliable sources or you are wasting everyone's time here.
 * 2) Make sure to avoid violating our living persons policy as that is a legal risk to Wikipedia which will not be tolerated.
 * 3) Avoid just stating your opinions — unless it has to do with improving the article, specifically, it is disruptive to the stability of this talk page.
 * 4) I have protected the talk page for one day, but if the same level of disruption continues, it will be protected for considerably longer.
 * 5) Wikipedia is not an exercise in free speech. It is an encyclopedia where information is verified only by summarizing reliable sources.
 * 6) All article talk page discussion ought to be geared toward this end.

Thank you in advance for your close attention. El_C 14:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

OTRS open disclosure
What seems like a coordinated attempt at suppression, OTRS has been for the last 24 hours spammed with messages relating to this article from over 100s of people/email accounts. They are treated as normal dispute resolution messages and referred to this talk page or to other venues. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, Jonatan Svensson Glad. El_C 17:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian view on Delhi’s violence: Modi stoked this fire

 * https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/26/the-guardian-view-on-delhis-violence-modi-stoked-this-fire


 * This can be used, but another opinion would be needed to balance out as an opposing viewpoint. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it cannot be. It is an opinion piece merely hosted on The Guardian, not a piece by the editorial staff. Also, there is no requirement that information included needs to be somehow balanced, as long as the information is reliably sourced and meets the verifiability policy. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it says "Editorial" below the headline.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  21:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece by the editorial staff it seems. Either way, that means you cannot use it as a source for facts but can be used for other sourcing purposes. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They are giving it a headline that says "The Guardian view on..." and also including "Editorial" so it clearly means they are very serious about it and approved by their big guns.-- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  21:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They are serious about it, yes, approved by big guns, maybe. Opinion pieces do not go through the same editorial process as news articles because they are opinion pieces, not news articles, hence subject to less stringent processes. You don't use the Sunday special sex ed column as source for factual information, do you? --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We should not miss the big picture here: Narendra Modi is Prime Minister of the Indian Union. Ultimate responsibility for protecting citizens of the Indian Union falls on his shoulders. Narendra Modi's consistent support for Hindi Nationalism and bias against Muslims, Dalits and non-Hindi peoples of South Asia is well documented across global media. It is well-known that Modi and his cohorts are fomenting all this violence. I fully agree this article must be quoted, as it redresses much of the bias of the racist New Delhi media octopus. WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Just want to make a quick point that a newspaper's 'editorial' is what it says it is. If NYT or WaPo or Guardian says something in an editorial, I am sure that's Wikipedia-worthy. A newspaper in the US 'endorsing' some candidate as a party's nominee or to be the President in the general election tends to be pretty big news. Even when Aatish Taseer writes an 'opinion' piece in Time Magazine critical of the Indian Prime Minister which then leads to his having 'troubles' related to his 'PIO' status, that's a 'widely known' or 'widely shared' viewpoint and can be mentioned on the relevant Wikipedia page. Other counterviews can be posted as well. Let some newspaper come out with an Editorial in support of the GOI, then someone can add that to Wikipedia. As long as editorials in respected newspapers are coming out that are critical of GOI, Wikipedia editors should be free to add those editorials to Wikipedia articles saying such-and-such newspaper has come out with an editorial saying such-and-such. All these things are obvious but I felt they needed to be said. Sachi Mohanty 08:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Sachi bbsr (talk)

‘Modi stoked this fire’: How international media reported Delhi violence
looks like our article still needs a lot of work. -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  14:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ‘Modi stoked this fire’: How international media reported Delhi violence
 * , absolutely. And that's what we're here for. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, Agree with the comments. This seems to be a consensus. can we prepare a draft on this ? where can this be added ? FYI ,    ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  17:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , we can add it in the "Aftermath" section that is working on, maybe under the sub-section of "Reactions". SerChevalerie (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Inhuman Tweeting by Vivek Agnihotri
Take a look at this tweet.

https://twitter.com/vivekagnihotri/status/1232129299492360193

I don't know what to do with this. Sachi_bbsr talk 10:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Police Inhumanity along with Vivek Agnihotri's Tweet
https://twitter.com/ndtvvideos/status/1233467939879374849

Same incident that Vivek is ridiculing. Sachi_bbsr talk 10:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sachi_bbsr They were then taken to police station and beaten even more. One of the guys in blue shirt named Faizan eventually died. see.
 * see police vandalizing property -- ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  10:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-violence-video-national-anthem-6291881/ Sachi_bbsr talk 10:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think this can be added to the article. thoughts ?  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  10:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, Sure. It can be a micro-story in itself inside the bigger article. A sub-section perhaps titled "Possible Police Barbarism" and perhaps another sub-section "Dehumanising Tweet by Vivek Agnihotri." It aligns with various other dehumanising statements about 'protesters' who 'can be identified by what they are wearing' and how Shah is going to 'remove every termite' "infiltrating" the country and so forth. And there is historical precedence for such talk in Rwanda and Nazi Germany. It's a 'particular' thing but also part of a 'larger' and more general pattern of hate speech. Just yesterday, I came across these three Wiki pages (and apparently there are exactly three of these 'kind'):


 * * Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
 * * Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill
 * * Racial_policy_of_Nazi_Germany


 * I guess it's a very specific 'incident' but there is a larger picture and historical patterns. Sachi_bbsr talk 10:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , see the discussion at . that user has created a draft at User:Rashid Jorvee/sandbox may be you can review and include there. So that it can be added into the article.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  11:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * DBigXray, I took a cursory look at the text there and it's very poorly worded; not up to Wikipedia standards. I have given this some thought since I last wrote here. I think this part of the "story" is like a "coda" or an "Aftermath" or something along those lines. So, a subsection can be added to the article with a possible title of "Aftermath of the Riots" or something along those lines. "Role of the Delhi Police" can be a sub-subsection which will have text saying 'Delhi Police was seen accompanying rioters and stone throwers' which can be backed up with citations. The text will further say 'Delhi Police was seen beating some people lying on the ground who were subsequently taken to the local police station and beaten even more. One of the persons (insert name) was admitted in the neurosurgery wing of (insert hospital name) but (insert name) died on the (insert date).' Citations are of course there.


 * Another sub-subsection can be "Public's Reaction" which will point out that 'a crowd was seen chanting "goli maro ..." at the Rajiv Chowk Metro station on the 29th of February.' Another sentence in this sub-subsection will say that 'a crowd was seen marching in the Cannaught Circus area chanting "goli maro ..."'. I recall bdutt's tweet about this. Proper citations should be available now.


 * Others can possibly add other sorts of 'reactions'. I don't know if R Jagganathan's tweet talking about the need for Hindus to 'rise' for this 'civilization war' qualifies as a Post Riot reaction. Seems pretty incendiary to me. There is of course Vivek Agnihotri's tweet which seeks to belittle ... actually I will need to refer back to V Agnihotri's tweet to try and 'make sense' of what his point was.


 * I came across one more tweet (possibly from Sania Ahmed) where she pointed to Lal Bahadur Shashtri's granddaughter responding with a "lol crying' emoji to someone who suggested (or quote tweeted) to a Rana Ayyub tweet where Rana Ayyub said that she felt like 'hanging her head in shame.' The person who quote-tweeted Ayyub suggested the use of a 'rope.' And Shashtri's granddaughter found that suggestion immensely funny.


 * Surely I must have missed other 'reactions' by people to the riots. We can point to op-eds if any by major individuals. People like Rajdeep Sardesai have come out with some usual "both-sidism" by saying those involved on "both sides" should be severely punished or words to that effect.


 * Wait. Didn't the British Parliament also say something or the other? Other 'reactions' may be issued by other international organizations or human rights institutions or others. I have seen that USCIRF and OIC statements and India's official reactions to those statements are already part of the Wiki article. I thought that deserved a separate sub-subsection titled "International Reactions."


 * Just some thoughts. If there is some "agreement" about some of this on the Talk page, I might spend two or three hours crafting something. No point in spending that time and then publishing it and having somebody remove everything 'wholesale.' I have in mind the decision to remove the list of victims. Sachi_bbsr talk 16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * One more thought. Did Patra come out with some incendiary tweet about the need for Hindus to 'rise' or what I think I saw on my Twitter timeline was an old tweet by him? Pretty incendiary one. Which reminds me: I added some of his controversial statements to his page and maybe others can add/expand since Patra's false statements and misstatements are legion if not legendary. Sachi_bbsr talk 16:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * , I approve of your suggestions. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you began working on it? I'd like to chip in wherever possible. Maybe you can begin in your sandbox? SerChevalerie (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will create an Aftermath section in my Sandbox then. Also see this section. Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots And I am watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZwUoLpkmhk&feature=youtu.be Sachi_bbsr talk 13:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , noted. You may use these references:, in addition to  and  SerChevalerie (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

It's totally fake info you should investigate this And who is this nonsense author ? Shame on you wikipedia Raviarnav08 (talk) 12:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. If the reliable sources are incorrect, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Selective inclusion and exclusion violates neutral point of view. 2405:204:3323:9B54:C52E:6E2D:E178:BB9 (talk) 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it should be added. All the sections should be made concise. We are not filing a charge sheet. Shubham2019 (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2020
UPPER-CASTE DOMINANCE OF MOBS

The article so far fails to mention a very important aspect of the mob violence: the Hindi-Hindu mobs are dominated by UPPER CASTES - BRAHMINS and RAJPUTS. Kapil Mishra himself is a BRAHMIN. Please mention this paramount aspect. Here is another reference to this fact:

"The Hindu right-wing mob at the Babarpur junction on the night of 24 February came from the Hindu localities of the neighbouring areas—Yamuna Vihar to the north, Seelampur to the south, Maujpur to the west and Chhajjupur to the east. Several members of the Hindu right-wing mob had their upper-caste pride on display. Many men among them wore t-shirts that had “Brahman,” “Jat” and “Jai Shri Ram” written on them and from my conversation with them I gleaned that many of them belonged to other upper castes such as Rajputs and Baniyas." - ('Hindu supremacist mobs orchestrate violence against Muslims where BJP won in Delhi elections' Sagar, Caravan Magazine, 25 February 2020 https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/delhi-violence-north-east-maujpur-jaffrabad-babarpur-muslims-hindu

Please add this important point to the article, in order to provide a proper persective to this issue. Thank You. WashingtonPrime (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , what additional value does it add to the article? SerChevalerie (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The prominent role of Upper Caste Hindi-speaking communities (especially Brahmins and Rajputs) in the orchestrated violence has so far found no mention in the article, which in general exhibits a pro-New Delhi bias. Nor has the fact that Kapil Mishra is a Brahmin Supremacist himself. This is a colossal omission as Wikipedia should cover all aspects of the violence, including the caste composition of the perpetrators, as this is being clearly mentioned on the ground itself. In fact, the rioters are wearing T-Shirts bearing slogans glorifying their caste, and belong to a social movement that is generally known as 'Manu-wadi' (followers of Pandit Manu, the Brahmin author of the Manu-Smirti). This in itself should be grounds for inclusion in the article, and would address some of the Unionist bias shown in this article. WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

why not the role of police describe in articles most of the news chennels running the news about police is supporting hindu terrorist to destroy the property of muslims and killings. they just stopped their working and letting the rioters to loot and arsoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.31.121.208 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * WashingtonPrime, Please provide the draft that you want to add with the reliable sources. If it is acceptable, it will be added. Hope it helps.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  07:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed., your idea sounds interesting. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi you could create the draft in your sandbox. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The lead. "Riot;" mortality, property destruction; and issues of cohesion
I have been asked to look at the article. I have had time to examine only the lead. Here are some issues I see.
 * The usage of "Riot": Wikipedia serves a global audience.  It default is American English.  It may be that in South Asian English, "riot" means "religiously targeted violence or bloodshed," and that newspapers in India are using "riot" in this meaning, but this meaning is a little different from the common one in either British English (OED says: "4a A violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd; an outbreak of violent civil disorder or lawlessness.") or American English (Webster's Unabridged says, "an assemblage of three or more persons in a public place for the purpose of accomplishing by concerted action and in a turbulent and disorderly manner a common purpose irrespective of the lawfulness of the purpose.") I'm not suggesting that the title of the page be changed, but the lead should supplement "riot," with something more explicit, such as, "'violence whose victims were marked out on the basis of their religious affiliation.'" It is a mouthful to be sure, but in any encyclopedia—which is different from a newspaper—it is important for this to be said. It is also pretty clear from reporting in the best third-party international sources, including several articles lead-authored by Jeffrey Gettleman, the Pulitzer-prize-winning South Asia bureau chief of the New York Times, that the violence was not just random violence in which people in disordered haste were attacking the unlucky humans or their property that happen to come their way.
 * In any article involving human fatalities (whether occurring from localized violence, such as this, or widespread violence) the nature of the fatalities need to presented upfront and center, not much later in the article. It is clear from the best third-party international reporting that the dead are mostly Muslim and the properties destroyed are overwhelmingly Muslim.  That needs to be said with greater precision than is being now.
 * After two sentences about the violence, the lead plunges into the larger history and the legislation. That takes away from the cohesion of the narrative.  The history should be presented only after sufficient details of the violence have.
 * I would suggest that for (the sub-topics) of presenting perspective or value-laden judgments the article cite wherever possible from only the following print newspapers and magazines, and to mix the international and Indian in equal parts:
 * the international: The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, TIME, Newsweek, The Atlantic, The Irish Times, The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist, New Statesman, Spectator, Le Monde, Le Figaro, Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Sunday Times (South Africa), Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka), The Sowetan, Asahi Shimbun, Yomiuri Shimbun, Japan Times, Far Eastern Economic Review, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, and The New Zealand Herald.
 * I have avoided choosing newspapers from countries that because of reasons of political or religious ideology might be seen as biased in their reporting.
 * and the Indian: Times of India, The Hindu, The Statesman (India), The Telegraph (Kolkata), The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Economic Times, The Pioneer (India), Deccan Chronicle, The Free Press Journal,
 * I have avoided, National Herald, Wire, Outlook, Caravan, DNA, Firstpost, .. either because they do not appear in print, or because they are not considered neutral in India.)
 * I would avoid using Doordarshan, NDTV, India Today, BBC, NBC, CBC, VOA, NPR, Deutsche Welle, ABC (in both meanings), CNN, PBS; for they report minute-to-minute breaking news, which is fine at the time when the news is breaking, but not so reliable a week later. In other words, the "March 1" news citing NDTV is fine. But a general characterization of the violence a week later citing NDTV is not.


 * I understand that these are not required by Wikipedia.  Please understand that Wikipedia has limited human-power.  Editing breaking news is not the typical charge or job description of an encyclopedia editor, nor the overall imperative of an encyclopedia.  Without any such rules—especially in the wake of a surfeit of new editors attempting to add their edit of interest—not only will the narrative flip-flop. but human power resources of Wikipedia will also be strained to their limits.
 * I will not edit the lead for now, but if I don't see any improvements in a few days, I might make some edits. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Frontline, India Today, Outlook and The Caravan are weekly/monthly news magazines that provide a longer-term view, and I see no reason to exclude them. The Atlantic and The New Yorker, being similar American magazines, fall into the same camp.
 * The distinction between "Internet newspapers" and print newspapers is increasingly blurred. The print newspapers also put out instant reports on the Internet, and the Internet newspapers also put out considered stories overnight. The Wire and Scroll.in are increasingly filling a void left by the print newspapers as they sell out to the government and business house advertisers. Being less expensive, they are less dependent on the advertisers.
 * Deutsche Welle I find to be an excellent newspaper with a keen interest in South Asia, while avoiding the historical baggage and prejudices of the Commonwealth and American sources. So, with some adjustments, your list can be made to work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose any arbitrary whitelisting/blacklisting of sources for this article. If sources are questionable, they should be proposed for deprecation via WP:RFC at WP:RSN, and restrictions applied only if there is community consensus. Having a double standard for this article is a bad idea. NedFausa (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Fowler is talking about the sources for "presenting perspective or value-laden judgments". For aged topics, we use WP:SCHOLARSHIP for those. For current events, there won't be any scholarly sources. So we have to decide which sources to use for them. The alternative is to let the Wikipedians decide what judgments they want to make and support them by whatever source the can find. For example, I just mentioned somebody doing that with a Republic TV judgment, masquerading as a Newslaundry judgment. That is the road to WP:POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I hesitated before I added DW. But then I felt I had to be consistent.  :)  Please make some judiciously amended list, guided by your long experience in editing POV-battleground-pages, your common sense, and your wisdom.  Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what you've done with the first lead paragraph, but there's now several redundancies between that and the rest of the lead. If you have a moment, I wonder if you'd be willing to rework those, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK I will take a look at it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm done. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Blatant Collusion of Police
Several video evidences revealed the involvement of police on a bizarre scale. BBC realsed a report showing how police were throwing stones with the hindutva finge. One video also emerged showing the police officer breaking CTV cameras and in one video can be seen escorting the finge. Ritik Chandra (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources mentioned but not actually cited. Please do so so that what you are claiming can be verified. El_C 22:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8R8h1hCCR4 Here is the story run by BBC news hindi. Showing bizarre police involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritik Chandra (talk • contribs) 03:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Requesting better source for "Journalists being paid to paint Delhi riot in Communal angle"?
There's a twitter post by J Gopikrishnan who claimed to have been contacted by foreign media to paint Delhi riot in communal angle. AFAIK only OpIndia has covered this news. Any other WP:RS sources for inclusion in wikipedia?

Crawford88 (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Not that I have checked, but I would wait for better sources. Tessaracter (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Archive settings
Since the 24-hour check doesn't seem to be working properly, have now kept the max size of Talk page to 150,000 bytes. Only old threads should be affected by this, and the discussion can still continue (since the thread is only archived, not removed). SerChevalerie (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed it over from ClueBot to MiszaBot so hopefully that will fix the auto archive. Levivich&thinsp;[ dubious – discuss] 22:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks! SerChevalerie (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Redundant comments
in the past 2½ hours, you added what is essentially the same comment six times to this Talk page. In multiple instances, you repeated your comment verbatim. Diffs are, in order posted: one and two (verbatim), three, four and five (verbatim), and six. I do not question your good faith, but as the behavioral guideline on disruptive editing cautions us: The fact that the disruption occurs in good faith does not change the fact that it is harmful to Wikipedia. I respectfully request that you stop repeatedly posting the same comment. Trust me, you have made your point. NedFausa (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with . It is very frustrating for an editor whose edits have been unravelled in such fashion.  It is difficult to assume good faith endlessly either, for such unravelling begins to have the hallmarks of piecemeal reverting, and of 1RR-avoidance.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This was happening as I was commenting on commentbox but It was not appearing on it. So I copy pasted by comments three times. Then I realised the problem. This is probably due to I am editing on mobile phone. ThanksDev0745 (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

CAA
It is absolutely necessary to say exactly what is CAA and how it will do good or bad to Indian citizen, specifically Indian Muslims. This is the central point and is missing in the article. Vasantray Vachhani (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Some background that provides context can include a summary from and about that material, yes. El_C 08:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this proposal. I think a short line or 2 may be helpful. User:Kautilya3 thoughts ?  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  09:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * CAA plus NRC/NPR both. Coz that's what all the protests are about.Edward Zigma (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I added an explanation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, Kautilya3. El_C 09:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A clause or sentence or so does seem like a good thing; and Kautilya3's edit is appreciated. However, in the interests of strict accuracy, we might be better with something based on the text from the CAA article - providing a  path to Indian citizenship for ... migrants of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, ... who arrived from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. or similar. Specifically, it is only particular bordering countries of origin (doesn't include China, Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan) and only specific religious minorities. - Ryk72 talk 10:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC) - struck extraneous section - Ryk72 talk 11:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , I dont have strong opinion. But I think User:Kautilya3's update is just what is needed. News article covering this riot do not go into the nuts and bolts of CAA. they give a high level overview of CAA and then dive straight into the subject of riots. Most of the people are already aware of CAA protests and those who are not, can click the link to understand more. There are limits of how deep in detail a background section can go. Over elaboration seems to be WP:UNDUE here as it distracts from the topic of the riot. So I oppose addition of these details.  ⋙–D Big X ray ᗙ  11:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that in response to the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which allows fast-tracked naturalisation for religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan is significantly more wordy than the current in response to the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), which allows fast-tracked naturalisation for immigrants from neighbouring countries belonging to all religions except Islam. I am sure that is has the advantages of accuracy & specificity. - Ryk72 talk 11:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I cannot say what you are trying to say but I find wikipedia pretty welcome place, where a lot of concerns are duly noted if you open a talk page discussion. The wikipedia even allows pics of prophet Mohammad which is strictly not allowed in Islam. So I really think your allegations are baseless. If they were biased, they would not allow things which are not allowed. Every word on wikipedia is curated and can be challanged in talk page. I would advice you to open talk page, if you think something written is wrong. Edward Zigma (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Ryk72 You must first get actual copy of CAA. It is not written all religion except Islam rather listed specific minority communities in those countries only. We need to shred off our personal opinion as a true journalist. Go through the Amendment section DBigFacts (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not quite able to parse this. To what comment of mine is it a reply or rebuttal? I have read the CAA, and it does indeed not say "all religion except Islam", but has "Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian", and only from "Pakistan, Afghanistan & Bangladesh". I say that our article text should follow that. I don't see that aligning our text to the source is injecting personal opinion; if that is what is being implied. I am not now a journalist; but Wikipedia is not a journal. - Ryk72 talk 10:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)