Talk:2020 Delhi riots/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

NOPV of the article

It looks like the article violates the WP:NOPV norms and have a lots of blog-like references. These things should be carefully monitored by the editors and people with proper knowledge on the topic.--Methu1 (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Methu1, which specific lines violate the norms according to you, and which sources are "blog-like"? All editors have been careful to use WP:RS. SerChevalerie (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Methu1 I would add that editors are not required to have knowledge of the topic in order to write about it, as long as they are writing based on what reliable sources say. Wikipedia summarizes what those sources say- if you disagree with what they say, you need to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi SerChevalerie, thank you for initiating a healthy discussion. Usually, articles like this involve more than one opinion/fronts. Contrast to newspaper-like articles, Wikipedia articles do not provide judgement but write all the fronts (without impartial weightage, see WP:Due and undue weight) and let the reader decide. see more on: WP:Purpose of Wikipedia and WP:NOPV. Some sources argue on one front that this is a Hindu-Muslim riot, on the other hand, few other reputed articles claim it to be purely pro-CAA vs anti-CAA clash. see: Business Standard, Economic Times, The Hindu, Logical Indian and Hindustan Times. The second front is not entirely communal. Though many protesters in the anti-CAA group are Muslim, it has Hindus as well. Some of them are even arrested. see: zeenews and The Statesman. There is a third front as well, which suspect the involvement of foreign power (terror-link) because it happened exactly during Trump's visit to India. see: Sunday Guardian,Republic World and The Hindu. At this point, my objection is towards the way the "introduction" part is written. It should be made more bias-free with neutral statements. We can't even copy the newspaper statements directly, because they sometimes provide judgements directly. We can pay attention to three things of NOPV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", "Prefer nonjudgmental language" and "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views".--Methu1 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• 331dot, Wikipedia requires people with content knowledge to write a better non-biased article. see: Wikipedia:Expert_editors#General; even we have a template {{Expert needed}}.--Methu1 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Methu1 I didn't say otherwise, only that anyone can do so, not just experts or people with specific knowledge of the topic. Anyone who can read a reliable source can contribute. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Methu1, firstly, the current version of the lead has been created painstakingly by Fowler&fowler to summarize the events of the riots, in hopes that we may expand upon the same in the main body. To understand this process better, please refer to § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles). We are also using only independent third-party international sources for the majority of the article (and for all the "controversial statements"), so I don't see why you are unhappy with the sources used. We have already achieved consensus for the same, and agreed upon the fact that it is WP:NPOV.

Further, the issue is far from being an open-and-shut case. There are emotions (and opinions) from all sides involved, and we have done our best to represent the valid facts, as reported by the high-quality sources mentioned. We are far from finished, and so is the Indian judiciary, which is still investigating the riots. As such, "expertise" on the topic will not be easy to come by in the near future. Until then, us editors have summarised whatever we can, from the best-possible reliable sources available.

Regarding the POV of the article, please put forward your specific suggestions so that we may achieve consensus that we are sufficiently NPOV. Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Have currently removed the tag, if there are any specific POV-related issues, then they can be discussed here first. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There is clear bias in the article lead which has not been addressed. The whole second paragraph describes in graphic details about violence on muslims but any instance of violence by muslims has been left out. Suggestion to include: Ankit Sharma's post mortem report indicated that he had suffered 51 injuries out of which 33 injuries were caused by blunt weapons such as rods. After this, Ankit Sharma's body was thrown into drain. source: "https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/postmortem-of-ib-official-ankit-sharma-shows-51-injuries-1655400-2020-03-14". WP:NPOV has not been applied to the lead. All POV which doesn't support a specific POV has been left out. Only those sources have been written which have only one POV. There is a prominent POV that riots were orchestrated to defame India globally on the day of visit by Donald Trump.This should also be included in the lead. Source: https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-violence-in-delhi-orchestrated-for-publicity-as-trump-is-visiting-india-sources/347807. All other POVs even from reliable sources have been deliberately suppressed to support only one POV. There is no neutral point of view at all. The lead is as partial as can be made by picking and choosing selectively to support one POV. (Sachin.cba (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC))

Why should (for example) we give so much attention to one person in the lead? Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, the riots are more than just one person's death. We have covered it sufficiently so far. Besides, adding it specifically to the lead would be WP:UNDUE. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not just about a person. It is an example that brutality happened from both sides. Otherwise, the only POV that is being reinforced is that only Hindus were brutal and they brutalized genitals of Muslims which is just one sided agenda. Secondly, the whole POV that there is strong correlation between visit of Trump and planned conspiracy for riots is being left out. Sachin.cba (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read the full lead again; there are instances of brutality against Hindus mentioned, too. And please support all your claims with WP:RS. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

In the full lead, there is only line which says something about Hindus "The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted." while the entire lead is written blaming only Hindus for riots and portraying Muslims as victims:

List of points

1. The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims 2. Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire 3. By mid-March many Muslims had remained missing. 4. Muslims were marked as targets for violence 5. In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised. 6. The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters. 7. By the end of February, many Muslims had left these neighbourhoods 8. Even in areas of Delhi untouched by the violence, some Muslims had left for their ancestral villages, fearful for their personal safety in India's capital. 9. On 23 February 2020, a leader of the ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Kapil Mishra, called for Delhi Police to clear the roads, failing which he threatened to do so himself with help from his supporters. 10. After Mishra's ultimatum, violence erupted. 11. Rioters wearing helmets and carrying sticks, stones, swords or pistols, and the saffron flags of Hindu nationalism entered Muslim neighbourhoods, as the police stood by 12. Chants were heard of "Jai Shri Ram" ("Victory to Lord Rama"), a slogan to which the ruling party is partial 13. In the neighbourhood of Shiv Vihar, groups of violent Hindu men attacked Muslim houses and businesses for three days, often firebombing them with cooking gas cylinders and gutting them without resistance from the police 14. In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence; on the 25th a Muslim mob approached a Hindu neighbourhood throwing stones and Molotov cocktails and firing guns 15. The Delhi police were accused by the affected citizens, eyewitnesses, human rights organizations and Muslim leaders around the world of falling short in protecting Muslims. 16. Videos showed police acting in a coordinated manner against Muslims, on occasion purposefully helping Hindu gangs. 17. Witnesses said some police officers joined the attacks on Muslims 18. After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu organisations continued to parade alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims. 19. About 1,000 Muslims sought shelter in a relief camp on the fringes of Delhi. 20. Gangs of Hindus appeared in several Muslim neighbourhoods in the days preceding the Hindu festival of Holi, celebrated in 2020 on 9 March, to scare Muslims into abandoning their homes. 21. In the midst of prevailing anti-Muslim attitudes, senior lawyers in Delhi were not accepting cases on behalf of the riot victims. 22. Among Muslims who have continued to live in their neighbourhoods, the violence has created potentially long-living divisions a.) Line 9 and 10 as in above mentions that Kapil Mishra's speech led to riots. But, Tahir Hussain, a politician who led Muslim mob in killing Hindus, finds no mention. Hence, suggestion to add: "AAP councellor Tahir Hussain was later booked as main conspirator in the riots. As per police reports, Tahir Hussain is the main person who had been instigating the mob, both on 24th and 25th February, in the Chand Bagh area." Sources: 1. https://theprint.in/india/tahir-hussain-planned-ib-staffer-ankit-sharmas-murder-delhi-police-in-new-chargesheet/434640/ 2. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-riots-police-names-ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-as-main-conspirator-in-chargesheet-1684767-2020-06-02 3. https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/delhi-riots-tahir-hussain-told-accused-to-be-prepared-for-big-riot-police-tells-court/603398 4. https://www.news18.com/news/india/suspended-aap-leader-tahir-hussain-told-accused-in-january-to-be-prepared-for-big-riot-chargesheet-2659067.html 5. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/tahir-chargesheet-claims-planning-began-in-jan-6439867/ There are 50s of articles describing the role of Tahir Hussain and police findings. Tahir Hussain bought bullets, distributed money to orchestrate riots. Police recovered Molotov cocktails, a large number of bricks and stone pieces and three catapults from the house of Tahir Hussain which were used to attack Hindus. Kapil Mishra has been described as if his public speech direclty led to riots. But the main conspirator of the riots has been brushed under the carpet to promote only one POV. b.) Riots were planned during visit of Donald Trump, a significant POV has been left out from the lead. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-violence-in-delhi-orchestrated-for-publicity-as-trump-is-visiting-india-sources/347807 c.) Chants of 'Jai Shri Ram', a Hindu slogan has been included in the lead. But muslims mobs shouting "Allahu Akbar" and attacking Hindus has been left out. Sources: 1. https://thewire.in/communalism/delhi-riots-gtb-hospital-deaths 2. https://scroll.in/article/954574/divided-city-how-barricades-came-up-overnight-between-hindu-and-muslim-neighbourhoods-in-delhi 3. https://national.janamtv.com/nare-e-taqbir-allah-hu-akbar-slogans-used-during-riots-in-delhi-19768/ d.) Line 14 in above, the attack by Muslims has been justified as countering perceived threats. Muslims go killing Hindus, but its OK since Muslims perceived a threat. Is this neutral from any standpoint? e.) Line 16 & 17 in above, describes police supported Hindus and attacked Muslims. But the attack by Muslims on police, leading to cop's murder by Muslims has been ignored. Sources : 1. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/head-constable-s-killing-in-delhi-riots-police-says-7-people-arrested-1654776-2020-03-12 2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/seven-arrested-for-head-constable-rattan-lal-s-murder-their-relatives-insist-photos-and-videos-don-t-tell-real-story/story-4FMBIq4zld8rQrGmRH2DeN.html f.) There is no mention of PFI, an extremist Islamic organization involved in orchestrating the riots. Sources 1. https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/delhi-violence-probe-reveals-pfi-role-banned-outfit-provided-logistical-and-financial-support-to-rioters/563492 2. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-pfi-delhi-chief-secretary-arrested-for-instigating-and-funding-delhi-riots/348640 3. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/probe-into-delhi-riots-student-activists-pfi-under-police-scrutiny-6378140/ g.) Involvement of Pakistan, ISI and Islamic State forces are not included. Sources: 1. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/indian-agencies-point-to-pak-link-in-anti-caa-protests/story-qWCiqnXCO285Qsv1rFQJeL.html 2. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/delhi-police-detains-couple-linked-to-isis-for-instigating-anti-caa-protests/articleshow/74538090.cms 3. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/delhi-police-detains-couple-linked-to-isis-for-instigating-anti-caa-protests/article31015849.ece 4. https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/jamia-nagar-delhi-couple-with-isis-link-planning-suicide-attack-in-delhi-detained-say-sources-2191910 5. https://www.oneindia.com/india/delhi-riots-in-an-18-day-old-probe-pakistans-role-features-multiple-times-3051991.html 6. https://zeenews.india.com/india/delhi-riots-over-1000-social-media-accounts-were-being-operated-from-pakistan-to-incite-violence-report-security-agencies-2270097.html

As per WP:NOPV: This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Hence to include only certain sources supporting a specific POV in lead is a violation of this policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 03:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba, thank you for your response. Some of the statements stated by you have already been covered in the main body of the article; I'd suggest you to take a proper look at it. In the meanwhile, please try and follow § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles), which has been compiled by Fowler&fowler with the intention of maintaining NPOV in the sources used. I will still go through the sources cited by you to verify the statements you wish to be added. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• SerChevalerie I had not gone through those previous discussions. Thanks for redirecting me there. I completely agree with you that this case is far from being open and shut. But, this does not justify to allow the article to violate NPOV. The additional investigation will be added in due course of time. But my suggestion is to write/modify this article with a neutral point of view. Also, to keep it inline with other related article to maintain the consistency, I have following proposed modification in the first paragraph: The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were a six-day long inter-communal violence in the North East Delhi, resulted in at least 53 deaths including 36 Muslims and 15 Hindus. The dead also included a policeman, an intelligence officer. The riot broke out following clashes between pro-CAA, mostly Hindus, and anti-CAA, mostly Muslims, supporters. Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Economic Times--Methu1 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• SerChevalerie The discussion in § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) is still open; and we can't conclude a discussion based on that.--Methu1 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Please keep the {{NPOV language}} back as the consensus is not achieved or the discussion is dormant. (see: Template:POV#When_to_remove). This tag is meant to attract more people to fix it--Methu1 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Methu1, Allow me to quote Slatersteven from another section of this Talk page: Per wp:consensus "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. We have long since achieved consensus on all the discussions here; they simply haven't been archived so that they are open to the public eye. In any case, you will have to make a stronger case for your allegations of NPOV when there are already much, much better sources available (and have been used for the existing lead). Take for example, your Business Standard source, which simply takes a chunk of its content from an earlier revision of this very article. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba, I found a bit of time:

Reply to: List of points

a) The news reports hardly claim that he was the only one inciting the riots (according to the chargesheet). We have so far stayed away from adding his name due to WP:BLPCRIME and the fact that sticking to WP:DUE, we will also have to cover the POV mentioned in User:SerChevalerie/sandbox § Tahir Hussain (note that this was a very early draft). It is simply unnecessary for this article. Additionally, you claim to point out POV-bias in the lead but your own language is far from POV, making me wonder if you even understand what POV is. b) Already covered in 2020 Delhi riots § Response by the government. c) 2020 Delhi riots § 24 February Later that night, at around 10:30 p.m., a mob beat a Hindu man and his elder father travelling on a scooter with sticks, stones and swords while screaming "Allahu akbar". d) The information is perfectly sourced. e) Again, see 2020 Delhi riots § 24 February. f) and g) have so far not been added due to WP:RECENTISM, although I would like to point out that ISIS has been mentioned in 2020 Delhi riots § Aftermath.

In summary, you seem to not have read beyond the main body, and don't seem to have a good grasp of WP:NPOV yourself, using non-neutral language in your suggested edits. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

a) To not even name Tahir Hussain who as per chargesheet is main conspirator but writing lines from which only meaning that can be derived is that Kapil Mishra's speech caused the riots says sufficiently about neutrality here. Has Kapil Mishra been convicted of creating riots or it is so proven in court that his speech led to riots? WP:BLPCRIME doesn't seem to apply to him. {[WP:DUE]] : To name the key conspirator of riot as per chargesheet is not undue weight. Your POV User:SerChevalerie/sandbox § Tahir Hussain seems more like a lawyer's preparation for Tahir Hussain rather than an encyclopedic content.
c) Justifying attack by Muslims even though perfectly sourced is a case of editorial bias. WP:NPOV says no to editorial bias, you have to incorporate opposing POV as well. Muslims attacked Hindus is a fact. But to qualify it, saying that Muslims attacked Hindus because Muslims perceived threat is a case of editorial bias .
For points b,d,e and f raised by me, these are major POVs and they have not been incorporated in lead. The lead promotes only one POV using selective sources to blame Hindus and paint Muslims as victims. That is why it is important to incorporate major significant POVs (in the lead).

WP:NPOV states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

But in this case, the lead it is written from a non neutral point of view (blame Hindus, paint Muslims as victims). It is unfair, disproportionate and full of editorial bias. And there is complete denial to include any significant view from reliable sources apart from the one POV which seems to be more of an agenda driven writing rather an encyclopedic work. Sachin.cba (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

A charge sheet is (at best) an RS for an accusation not a fact. And we go with what third party RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba, I admitted that my sandbox draft is incomplete, but bear in mind that if we introduce any information about Hussain, we must give due weight to all POVs. Regarding Kapil Mishra, that's your implementation; the lead simply says that riots erupted after his speech. It is NOT stated that his speech caused the riots. In fact, in the main body, it is even stated that Mishra rejects the allegations, keeping it sufficiently within WP:BLPCRIME. Regarding (c), we are going by what the RS says, and given that it is third-party and not even written by an Indian, we assume it to be free of "editorial bias". And for the rest, we have actually previously discussed decreasing the lead, so we are not going to entertain any more additions to it. If you have any other specific WP:NPOV issues to point out, please state them specifically, but don't drag this on with tangential discussions and your personal opinions. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

a.) Kapil Mishra, called for Delhi Police to clear the roads, failing which he threatened to do so himself with help from his supporters.[29][30] After Mishra's ultimatum, violence erupted. Writing two lines together links Kapil Mishra's speech with riots. It should be mentioned here itself that Kapil Mishra rejects it, but to hide it in the main body is suppressing promotes only one POV. Hiding Tahir Hussain's name does the same, violates neutrality.

c.) It is not necessary that just because it is written by a non-Indian, it is not free of bias. It justifies violence bias by Muslims and is biased. b,d and e: Length is not an excuse to violate neutrality. It still violates WP:NPOV. All the points are specific and backed by reliable sources. The only problem is that it doesn't suit the agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Mishra rejects what?Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba, all your points have been covered elsewhere in the article, so it does NOT constitute as a violation of WP:NPOV. The lead is simply summarizing the rest of the article, it is by no means the whole article. This discussion is closed if you have nothing else to say. As and when significant judgments are made, they shall be added in the rest of the article, but not before. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding it elsewhere and not giving proper weight violates WP:NPOV for two reasons: a.) Balance: WP:NPOV states- "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence". b.) Impartial tone: WP:NPOV states- "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized."

Here, a consistent partisan commentary has been adopted. Hiding significant POVs violates neutrality by manner of presentation and organization. Sachin.cba (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

" However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance.", in other words balance is based on how RS treat the topic. And the western press are not party to this conflcit.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy which states that only reliable sources are those which are present outside the country, or in this case, western press. Balance is not based on picking and choosing sources. It is volation of WP:NPOV. Here, all contradicting viewpoint has been eliminated. Sachin.cba (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes there is its called wp:npov, it does not say that only western media can be used, but it does say "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. IN this context Indian sources can be seen as biased and thus failing wp:undue. Now has anyone been convicted of inciting this riot? If not wp:BLP is clear we cannot claim they have. So on balance we have wholly neutral RS saying X and non neutral RS not saying Y, but rather just implying it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba, see WP:NEWSORG, which is recommended for Wikipedia editors to use as sources to eliminate as much bias as possible. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

How come only western sources are unbiased. Sources such as NYTIMES have been accused of having anti India bias. Using sources only with single POV in lead and ignoring all other sources with any different POV violates WP:NPOV. To say that Indian sources are biased and violates WP:UNDUE is false. By that logic, events in USA can be reliably published by Indian newspapers and not American newspapers which is absurd.

WP:RS states that "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". All significant POVs has been eliminated by using selective sources and a partial tone has been adopted which is violation of WP:NPOV.

WP:NEWSORG says "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". In the lead of this article editorial commentary, analysis and opinions of a single POV has been presented as statement of fact. It has led to one-sided commentary from a single POV which is to blame Hindus and victimize Muslims.

wp:BLP We cannot claim that anyone has been convicted of riots. That does not mean that we cannot even site findings of police and what is mentioned in chargesheet. Ignoring everything that is against a single POV violates WP:NPOV. All significant POVs have to be incorporated to achieve neutrality. Sachin.cba (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba, please also see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. And no, we have not employed any opinion pieces in the lead, so we can let this rest right there. Besides, if you are so concerned about the chargesheet, you wouldn't mind it going in any other section of the article, and would constructively suggest on how to go about adding this information (while maintaining WP:NPOV and staying away from WP:RECENTISM). SerChevalerie (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus here, and so I see no point in continuing. I see no issue with the articles POV as it represents the most neutral version based upon uninvolved sources. There is no more to say, and so I will say no more.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

* SerChevalerie Probably two independent discussions are running parallelly in one thread. Anyway, I had raised two queries last time. First, modification in the sentences (to a neutral point) by keeping the facts intact and by presenting both fronts without giving undue weightage to one. In the body of the article, things are written properly but not in the "introduction" part. Also, by reducing newspaper like sentences (see WP:NOTNP) and by keeping it consistent with other similar articles. Moreover, by not presenting other's front in the introduction, we are violating "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", "Prefer nonjudgmental language" and "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" of basic rules of NOPV.--Methu1 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

* SerChevalerie My second argument is regarding the {{NPOV language}} template. Thanks for your quote. My claims/arguments are supported by many other sources, not just one. Nowhere it's written that previous discussions can't be challenged/discussed again. And, removing the template while the discussion is going on clearly violate the rule Template:POV#When_to_remove. Please keep it back and let's discuss.--Methu1 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Methu1, so far we have addressed all NPOV and RS-related concerns. To summarize once again, we have used higher quality sources (WP:NEWSORG and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), so using the sources you have proposed in place of the existing ones is out of the question. We have also removed the template since Template:POV § When to remove states that it can be removed if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." I agree, there have been too many parallel discussions on this same thread; for clarity, I'd suggest that if you want to discuss this further by, you can start a new thread (and reiterate any significant points you have made). Additionally, please post any new Talk page comments at the bottom of the discussion, to maintain chronological order. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie The objective of this thread misinterpreted. I don't want to replace the sources rather want to add them to show the other front. The citations used so far is biased and sentences nowhere indicate other confirmed fronts. A neutral article should explain all the fronts with proper citations and let the reader decide. Quoting again the NOPV: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", "Prefer nonjudgmental language" and "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". I don't want to eliminate the points rather want to write it in a different way without violating previously said three points.--Methu1 (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you start a new thread to more clearly gain consensus. SerChevalerie (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased towards one community

The introduction section looks like an anti-Hindu blog post. First-line in the intro section says (the riots) "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims". The section gives many references to many "opinion articles" rather than actual news. Section conclusively proves that the riots were caused by Kapil Mishra's hate speech. The charge sheet by Delhi police points that the riots were preplanned by extremist Islamic organizations ( https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/delhi-riots-fact-finding-report-names-isi-tukde-tukde-gang-jcc/598937# ). Tahir Hussain charge sheet claims Delhi riots planning began in January ( https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/tahir-chargesheet-claims-planning-began-in-jan-6439867/ ). But none of these references are there in the article, especially in the intro section. The section says "Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire". Were the Hindus killed peacefully? This line should either be removed or the section should add a few lines on how the Hindus were killed. As for example IB staffer Ankit Sharma was stabbed 13 times and had 33 blunt injuries (https://theprint.in/india/ib-staffer-ankit-sharma-killed-in-delhi-riots-was-stabbed-12-times-and-not-400-times/380720/). Delhi police charge-sheet says Tahir Hussain "led the mob from his house and also from a mosque near Chand Bagh Pulia on February 24, 25 and gave it a communal color" (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/intel-staffer-ankit-sharma-killed-in-delhi-violence-specifically-targeted-chargesheet-2240077). There is no mention of the lynchings of Hindu Dalits (https://www.news18.com/news/opinion/opinion-no-one-speaks-for-the-dalit-victims-of-the-northeast-delhi-riots-2662867.html). The section says "Chants were heard of "Jai Shri Ram" ("Victory to Lord Rama"), a slogan to which the ruling party is partial". The "Allah Hu Akbar (God is (the) greatest)" chants by violent Muslim mobs are missing from the introduction section. (https://scroll.in/article/962526/in-delhi-violence-investigation-a-disturbing-pattern-victims-end-up-being-arrested-by-police). The biggest shock is in the line "In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence". This line basically says that the violence by Muslims is justified because they were threatened. The article says "Videos showed police acting in a coordinated manner against Muslims, on occasion purposefully helping Hindu gangs. Witnesses said some police officers joined the attacks on Muslims." Are these allegations against the Delhi police proved? The editing suspension is not stopping vandalism but is blocking the truth. This article violates all Wikipedia policies and requesting the admins to take the necessary actions. Quanta127 (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

The name of Kapil Mishra appears 30 times although nothing is proven against him. But the mastermind of the Delhi riots Tahir Hussain's name appears only once. There are videos showing violent mob throwing bombs from his rooftop. This is one of the most biased articles in Wikipedia. Despite repeated requested, the admins are not even including references to valid news articles. Because they feel that the police reports are not facts. This is unacceptable. The admins cannot selectively include a few references to favour one community. Wikipedia is not a personal blog. Editing has also been blocked. This is in violation of all Wikipedia policies and extreme prosonal bias towards one community. This article also supports violence by stating that Muslims because violent because they were threatened. Quanta127 (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Quanta127 Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. We present the sources so readers can see them and judge them for themselves as to their accuracy and bias. Wikipedia also does not provide equal time to all points of view regardless of their validity; it depends on the sources. If you don't like how sources have covered this event, you will need to speak to them. This event has passionate people on each side, with views based in ancient religions with a history of conflict. We will not solve that here, this is why we focus on the sources.

Unfortunately, disruptive editing and vandalism made protecting the article necessary. It is not protected to favor any point of view. If you have specific, sourced changes to make, you are free to make a formal edit request on this page. 331dot (talk) 08:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Quanta127: no one has been convicted of being the "mastermind of the Delhi riots". Yes, there are allegations against Hussain but they are just that, allegations, even if sources Wikipedia deems unreliable such as Opindia print them as fact. Stating it as a fact is the type of BLP violation and I mentioned below and I'll give you a warning for that. And no, this article does not violate all Wikipedia policies and it is highly unlikely that you even know them as you are already violating at least one. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

FAQ

I think we may need a FAQ now in the hope that we can stop the weekly (id not daily) "this page is biased" requests.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely to stop them, it will let you tell them to read the FAQ instead of pointing to WP:V and WP:NPOV.--Hippeus (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well it might make in quicker to close them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased Information

This page is not written using a neutral language and neutral point of view. This page is biased in favor of Muslims, all citations are from international media and opposition leaders comment.

Yes most of our sources are wholly uninvolved in the conflict and thus are neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Defamatory comment.

I think this post was written by someone who is biased toward a religion and don't want to put the name of religion ,cause a knowledgeable person don't put these word to as they are hate speech . I don't know why Wikipedia don't allow it to edit but all the facts (sorry there is no facts only a personal perception to defame other is written in this article ) I don't know why Wikipedia allowed these kind of articles and also locked it from edit . I think Wikipedia is also taking part in some one propoganda and biased this post didn't look like a article it's like a hate speech a and make a bad fig for other. Please remove it . Vorticity jaz (talk) 05:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Because of wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Delhi riots planned by Tahir Hussain

According to Delhi Police chargesheet, the Delhi riots were planned by Tahir Hussain and Umar Khalid to discredit India during Trump visit. This info needs to be added. And accordingly the narrative needs to be balanced. Source: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-riots-planned-to-discedit-india-during-trump-visit-delhi-police-1700702-2020-07-15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.71.109 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we can now say they have made the accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No evidence to link Kapil Mishra to the Riots

Delhi police has given an official statement that there is no ‘actionable evidence’ that Kapil Mishra’s speech led to the communal violence. Don't you think this information needs to be mentioned in the article? This article almost verges on libel against a person who is as yet not proven guilty. Source: https://scroll.in/latest/967605/anti-caa-protests-had-secessionist-motives-delhi-police-claims-in-affidavit-on-february-violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.69.71.109 (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, though I am not sure what no ‘actionable evidence’ means.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

update page

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/07/17/indias-police-found-complicit-anti-muslim-mob-violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anujith21 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I think we already mention police involvement, what do you want to add?Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Totally false. They block road for 3 months. Make people brainwash everyday for telling them u r muslim and we need fight with hindu. And against CAA. Even they not allow the report of zee news. R tv. India today. To take interview inside. NDTV Is support reporter in india everybody know this. Amit75513 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality is disputed

Neutrality is disputed of this article, so putting a template. Mahusha (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mahusha, please explain. SerChevalerie (talk) 03:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

One sided information is there in whole article. Citing only one news paper like Washington Post, The Wire. Pleae write the article from NPOV. Mahusha (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Kindly point out specific statements that you feel fail WP:NPOV. Please also see § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles) to understand why we've used third-party international sources to eliminate bias. SerChevalerie (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not cite only one newspaper.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post is pretty neutral. Hard to see what the OP is complaining about and they aren't specific enough.--Hippeus (talk) 11:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic (being euphemistic) article

Happened to glance through the article. It's so bad, it forced me to WP editing section after several years and post this remark. It can more rightfully belong to trashpedia than wikipedia.

I've, in fact, taken a snapshot of the article in the shape it is as of today (and locked further till 27-Sep-2020), as a memoir of WP spreading fake news, and later, to use as an artifact to share on social media, when the extent of fake news (includes 1. fiction presented as fact, 2. fact presented as fiction, 3. facts suppressed given they are not conducive to POV; most media portals when proliferating fake news restrict them to the 3rd, but this unabashedly engages in the first two also) in the article becomes so untenable it can't be supported despite 'cancel culture' and 'escapism' of WP editors and admins by citing one-liner "read WP:blah" when they're reminded they've collected trash, though supported by 200 POV references. isoham (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

ISoham Wikipedia summarizes what appears in independent reliable sources. If those sources are in error, you will need to take that up with them. If you feel they should not be considered reliable sources, take it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Feel free to offer any reliable sources to support changes you feel are needed to the article- but you should review prior postings on this page as you are not the first person to make this sort of comment. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected on Wikipedia. That a source might be biased does not itself disqualify it from being considered a reliable source, as long as they have a reputation of fact checking and editorial control. This even has passionate people on each side, with views based in ancient religions. The dispute will not be solved here on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

what facts do we suppress (please read wp:blp before answering)?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@ISoham: if you'd like people to write longer "this is why" reasoning they can, but the 1-liners are used to avoid dropping in the entire policy each time. The sourcing policies are comprehensive reasoning that distils literally millions of words of discussion. So instead of moaning about "one-liners", read them and respond in line with that. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: You asked, "what facts do we suppress"? I have already given two examples above. The fact is, police investigation is now revealing that the riots were planned, primarily by muslims. Yet, the very first line of the wiki article begins with a lie, that the riots were *caused* by Hindu mob. This now a disproven blatant lie. At best it can be presented as opinion. Given that the events are still under investigation, it is highly dishonest to begin the article with a statement like that. And despite my request, the changes have not been made, even though I have provided the relevant sources. This is how you guys are suppressing facts. Ultimately, the credibility of Wikipedia will suffer, just like the credibility of Western leftist media already has.

The police investigation has not been tried in court yes, so its not a fact, its an accusation. RS all say what we say, and until RS say otherwise we reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

ISoham, I don't see any edit requests from you, so you can't accuse editors of not incorporating your changes when you haven't listed them out formally. Nor do I see you citing any reliable sources. In any case, Wikipedia Talk pages are not a forum, so unless you have something significant to contribute to the discussion wrt improvement of the article, this discussion is closed. SerChevalerie (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There is always a circular logic which is being used every time I try to reduce bias in this article (especially in the lead). Only certain biased articles in NYT, Guardian are being used. It is beyond belief that for how an incident happening in India, someone publishing in USA is more reliable. Also, every attempt to reduce bias by citing other reliable sources (in the lead) is scuttled and finally when run out of arguments, they say that it is fixed and no change allowed. Most of the people reading this article know that this article is trash and is written with a certain agenda. For example, in the lead, it is included that Hindus were shouting "Jai Shri Ram". But Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar" has been pushed down so that Hinduphobic narrative remains. Sachin.cba (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

With a controversial subject, especially in cases like this with a dispute with animosity between two ancient religions, reporting from outside the area can be more dispassionate. In any event, thus far, no independent reliable sources have been offered; feel free to propose changes supported by reliable sources here- keeping in mind policies like WP:BLP and the fact that primary sources are not what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Here, reporting from inside is far more dispassionate than the rabid Hinduphobic articles of Washington Post, NYT and The Guardian. I have proposed changes several times, with reliable sources, but to no avail. Not just all other view points have been excluded. There is blatant violation of WP:NPOV e.g.

a.) Regarding neutral tone : "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article". In this article, a consistent Hinduphobic tone is adopted.

b) WP:NPOV says"Avoid stating opinions as facts", "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." There are several instances in the lead where opinions are presented as facts

i.) In the lead it is mentioned that "Muslims were marked as target for violence" while in the reference article in article in the link it is just in quote attribution. Some resident named Praveen said 'We were targeted because we were muslims'. But the lead mentions it as an overarching fact. This line should be removed from the lead.

ii.)Again in the lead "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised". All 3 sources quoted present it as in quote attribution to someone's statement or as an example case. But the article presents it as an overarching fact.

I have several other examples. But let us just test this out. Shall we remove the two lines because they violate WP:NPOV

1. "Muslims were marked as target for violence" and

2. "In order to have their religion ascertained, Muslim males—who unlike Hindus are commonly circumcised—were at times forced to remove their lower garments before being brutalised". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, as NPOV also make it clear we do not give false POV. The claims are sourced to high quality independent sources.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sachin.cba, we have entertained your repeated circular discussions multiple times before. If you have nothing new to say then please refrain from commenting on threads over here. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I read the entire conversation here and the main article. I only have one point that this main article pronounces a judgment against the Hindu community right in the first line of the article, to quote "caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims." It has a social implication. It comes right on top of Google. And it is backed by only 2 news articles. In first, the author is quoting an ex-IPS officer, but NOT writing explicitly how the ex-IPS came to that conclusion? what information is he having to claim such a thing, "They not only openly sided with the Hindu mobs attacking Muslims but also used brutal force against them". In the second article, the line which comes closest in claiming the culpability of Hindus is, "witnesses to the violence saw something different. As mobs swept through neighborhoods, burning homes and killing people, the police often stepped back if the crowd was Hindu. But when it was Muslims, witnesses said, the police could be vicious". This too is an anecdotal claim, plus it shows the biasness of police, and not who attacked whom. I am writing this so that moderators consider my preposition that, please explain the article and do not pass judgments when there is no evidence in the public domain. India, especially northern India, is slightly more communally charged. Unverified claims can tear the social fabric here. Please do not pass judgment. ---- Ritwik.m07 (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Can you quote, where I have repeated any discussion. Previously, I had quoted different sources to expand POV. Here, I am not asking to change POV, nor asking to quote different sources. Here, what is being claimed as fact is not even claimed as fact by RS quoted. Anyway, I have already received a threat from on my talk page to drop it. Slatersteven. Shows plenty !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin.cba (talk • contribs) 24 July 2020 (UTC)

"which was predominately Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", so yes wee have RS saying it, do you have RS saying this is not ture?Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritwik.m07, please also see the archives of this Talk page in detail, and also the other pinned sections of this Talk page. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie All I am saying is, I don't have any RS that claims Muslims attacked Hindus first. Some RS have written it but as testimonies, but testimonies are not reliable in themselves. Nor I have found any RS which claims, 'who attacked whom first is still known'. Losses were on both sides, yes in terms of numbers Muslims suffered more than Hindus; these are facts, and it is okay to report the facts. But the first paragraph claims something which is an interpretation of facts (by RS), and not a fact in itself. All I am asking is, consider the social impact of the first paragraph of this article. The memory of these riots is still fresh and such judgments (even coming from RS) can worsen the situation. Peace out. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)::

[1] "The violence erupted in February after the leaders from the governing Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their supporters attacked peaceful sit-ins", yes the source says hindos attacked first.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Neither BJP is representative of all Hindus, nor the people at peaceful sit-ins were only muslims. This attack was politically motivated and not based on religious grounds. The riots happened on religious grounds.---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

And not all British rules India, that does not mean it was not British ruled.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"British" had a representative i.e. monarch+PM who claimed that India is a colony of Britain. Hence, India was British ruled. Contrary to this case, where neither BJP is representative of Hindus, nor any of its members are. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

But they are Hindu, but would you rather it said "nationalist Hindu mobs", so to make it clear it was not every Hindu in India?Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

They attacked peaceful protesters not because they are Hindu. They attacked because they wanted to hurt anyone who went against their favorite political party. So I would rather say, "violent mobs" or "politically motivated violent mobs", just to clear that their nationalism or religion had nothing to do with their extreme actions/views. ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

RS say they were Hindu mobs attacking Muslim women, we do not use wp:or to write articles (or would you like me to write what I think of them?).Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

But this is not about how you perceive that Al-Jazeera article. This is about how you write this specific article, especially the first paragraph. Simply stating "caused chiefly by violent mobs attacking Muslims", would be very helpful in adding more neutrality to this article. ---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritwik.m07, please read the full first paragraph, instead of simply quoting sentences out of context. If you have no further comments than taking this discussion in circles (as I said, read the archives and the first section of this Talk page), then I am consiering this discussion closed. SerChevalerie (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Change in Interfaith solidarity section

Replace the following line in Interfaith solidarity section:

Akali Dal leader and former MLA, Majinder Singh Sirsa, opened up his gurudwara to those seeking shelter amidst the rioting.

by

Sikh community opened up its gurudwaras to those seeking shelter amidst the rioting.

According to the source cited [2], Majinder Singh Sirsa informed them that Sikh community has opened up its gurudwaras. He was not the one who opened it up. Secondly to say that Majinder Singh Sirsa, opened up "his" gurudwara suggests that it is his personal gurudwara which is not true as gurudwara belongs to Sikh community as a whole and not to him. Jasksingh (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jasksingh,  Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie Proposing the following updates in this section:

---

... Muslims visited their Hindu neighbors and assured their safety.[39]

On the night of February 25, Muslim residents of Indira Vihar protected a Shiv Temple from being vandalized.

In Chand Bagh, one of the worst-affected localities in the riot-hit North East Delhi, one Muslim man rushed two of his Hindu friends in his small hut to protect them from frenzy mob outside. Moreover, a group of Muslim residents stood guard outside the home where a Hindu couple was getting married.

Muslims in Mustafabad confronted and sent back a violent mob which came to attack Hindus in their neighborhood.

In Shiv-vihar, a Hindu resident sheltered a Muslim couple with their children and dressed them up as Hindus.

Locals in Yamuna Vihar in northeast Delhi formed a human chain to escort school children to safety.

The teen from Khajoori Khas (who saw his friends clashing as rioters) was saved, fed, and comforted by Muslim neighbors.

A Hindu man volunteered to remove the Hanuman statue which was placed on the entry of mosque, along with a saffron flag which was hoisted on one of the minaret of the mosque.

... gathered in front of the Sacred Heart Cathedral, New Delhi, to pray in solidarity.[142]

In the aftermath, a Muslim community in Saharanpur decided to end a 10-year old land dispute with Sikh community out of gratitude for the help given by Sikhs to the people affected by the recent violence in Northeast Delhi. In Punjab, a Muslim groom wore a traditional Sikh turban to express gratitude towards Sikh community for rescuing Muslims during riots in north-east Delhi.

References

---

Ritwik.m07 (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritwik.m07, most of this is WP:RECENTISM. Try to rework this after reading WP:10YEARTEST. Also, try to use better quality sources, as mentioned in § Fowler&fowler's: Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead (in POV-embattled India-related articles). Best regards, SerChevalerie (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

SerChevalerie WP:RECENTISM mostly deals with "long-term significance of the information" or "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?". This is an article about communal riots. If in the long-term, instances highlighting communal harmony will not be relevant, then I doubt why the section of "Interfaith Solidarity" even exists. Moreover, can you point out why the currently mentioned things in that section is NOT WP:RECENTISM but the above addition is? And regarding the sources, out of given 12, the given article already cites 11 of them (assuming reliable). The one which is not cited is The Free Press Journal, which is mentioned as reliable in Fowler&fowler's section you mentioned.
My intention to add to this section of "Interfaith solidarity" was to counter the communal tension this article is knowingly/unknowingly creating by blindly quoting interpretation of facts by foreign publishers, as facts. So can you please elaborate, how can I "rework" this? Do language needs change? or what? Also, a second professional opinion would be helpful Fowler&fowler Doug Weller Slatersteven ----Ritwik.m07 (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Ritwik.m07, the reason that this article causes communal tension is because it was a riot. Throwing a few instances of "interfaith solidarity" in this article won't fix the situation on the ground, unfortunately.

Regarding your concerns on the existing section having WP:RECENTISM, yes, I wholeheartedly agree. We had a discussion here on removing it entirely, if not trimming it down significantly. However, we could not achieve consensus.

Regarding the sources, we intend to eventually rewrite the entire article using higher quality sources. Call it a matter of opinion, but since we've used them the article's WP:NPOV has significantly increased.

I'm not completely dismissing your proposal. But instances like the ones you mentioned about Saharanpur and Punjab are definitely not going to work here, since we intend to cover only the area of North East Delhi. SerChevalerie (talk) 09:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this accusation true?

https://twitter.com/theskindoctor13/status/1289170058183245824

"They used Rana Ayyub's opinion article in Forbes as citation to call Delhi riot a "state sponsored pogrom of MuxIims"."

opinion piece is not reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:48E:FB86:11FD:E60A:F205:A061 (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you read our article, not some one on Twitter. We do not say this, it is false.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Biased article

One sided narrative of a very complex issue is not acceptable. Only limited and historically left leaning news outlets have been used for reference. Srijan K (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The ask the RS to do better reporting, not us for using it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Srijan K, this Talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have any specific suggestions to make towards the improvement of the article, then please go ahead. Else, your comments are opinions are not welcome here. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Srijan K (ec) See the numerous other prior discussions that raise the point you are attempting to make. If you have specific changes you would like to propose, please do so, keeping in mind that any changes must be sourced to independent reliable sources. Also be aware of the Biographies of Living Persons policy.

Please note that Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias; any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. The sources are provided so readers can evaluate them and judge them for themselves as to their bias. This event has passionate feelings based in ancient religions on each side, and we will not solve any religious strife here on Wikipedia, this is why we focus on the sources. If you have issues with bias in the sources, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent status of case shows that the Wiki article's alleged perpetrators in riot are biased. Please refer more references from recent ongoing case to have audience know about it. Spaceriot Virtual (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the Wiki article's alleged perpetrators in riot are biased"? Ignoring that, we can refer to the court case (if that's what you mean) if the case details are readily available on the internet. If the court case is not written about, you can add that to the article or create an Edit Request. 45.251.33.234 (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 (1)

The information in this article is wrong. It wasnt hindus that started the riots, but muslims that started it while hindus retaliated to save their lives. 2409:4043:91:6255:2352:21CC:96F9:C198 (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done Please propose what specific changes you want to see, cited to independent reliable sources, in a "change X to Y" format. Before you do, please review the numerous prior other discussion about what your propose. This is a topic with passionate supporters on each side, based in ancient religions with a history of conflict. We need to be careful about what we say and what sources are used. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 (4)

You have edited in your article about Hindus attacked to Muslims which is wrong. 2405:204:1106:9133:EDE8:6D1:902F:5185 (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done You have not proposed a specific change in a "change X to Y" format, sourced to independent reliable sources. Please see the numerous discussions above. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 (2)

Dear Wikipedia,

This riots was not by Hindus against Muslims. This is false and misleading.

" This involved AAP Leader Tahir Hussain organized rioting against Hindus to 'teach them a lesson' " 2A02:8071:2B97:8B00:AA:452C:CC2A:AF06 (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3, Please find the reliable sources which are complaint to reliable sources under WP:NEWSORG https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/wanted-to-teach-hindus-a-lesson-using-political-power-ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-confesses/videoshow/77325737.cms These sources are at the same time also among top 10 channel rankings by BARC. There are other multiple reliable sources and if you feel you need more than one then I can share here. I am not posting ranking here as it is available on their website and to save space. Thanks and goodday!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 06:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2020 (3)

Change "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims.[12][13] Of the 53 people killed, two-thirds were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire."

to

"The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and masterminded by AAP leader Tahir Hussain. The instigation was against Hindus in the area to "teach them a lesson". Tahir Hussain stashed many petrol bombs and ammunition that were given to the mob to violently attack the Hindu population in the surrounding areas. People were slashed with repeated blows or set on fire. There were approximately 53 people killed with many more injured." 2A02:8071:2B97:8B00:AA:452C:CC2A:AF06 (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

see all the other threads about this above this one, we are not repeating ourselves.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dear User talk:Kautilya3 Please find the reliable sources that support the change https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075 I hope NDTV is not a disputed sources as it is not just popular within India rather across the world with eminent columnist and wider coverage of Indian News at its best. Thanks again and I agree with you that for any user to request for change there must be reliable sources to support it. Good Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.169.63 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2020 (1)

This needs to be removed, "In some instances, Muslims countered perceived threats by returning the violence". . how can you justify violence by siding with one community.

This section needs to be removed, "After the violence had abated in the thickly-settled mixed Hindu-Muslim neighbourhoods of North East Delhi, some Hindu organisations continued to parade alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims.[43] About 1,000 Muslims sought shelter in a relief camp on the fringes of Delhi.[44] Gangs of Hindus appeared in several Muslim neighbourhoods in the days preceding the Hindu festival of Holi, celebrated in 2020 on 9 March, to scare Muslims into abandoning their homes"

Provided below are the links to 2 major news papers in India on how the riots have started. the whole article is hijacked by a section of people and looks like Propaganda tool, instead of projecting the truth.

https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075?pfrom=home-cities https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-says-police/articleshow/77322934.cms

wiki should be fair to both the communities, and shouldn't be used as propagand tool as this article is published. only see all the references provided are from foriegn sources who has their own motive is projecting this as anti hindu. we need to make sure these pages are not baised and represents truth and groung reality. Nanikg (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Nanikg As noted numerous times above, we do not put summaries of police interrogations in articles. Please review policy in this area, WP:BLP. When he is convicted in a court of law after a trial, then we can talk. This event has passionate supporters on each side, with views based in ancient religions with a history of conflict and strife. We will not solve that here, so we stick to what independent reliable sources state and can write about in a neutral point of view. This has tended to be done with sources outside of India that can look upon these events more dispassionately. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't appear from what I can see that the suspect had legal counsel(which would have certainly advised him to not confess) which certainly makes the interrogation suspect. 331dot (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2020 (3)

change "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February and caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims."

to "The 2020 Delhi riots, or North East Delhi riots, were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi, beginning on 23 February. As a response to an incendiary speech made by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kapil Mishra, acts of violence was initiated by Anti-CAA rioters at a Pro-CAA gathering which became a turning point for Hindu mobs turning on Muslims across the North Eastern Delhi."

Despite the clarity in the Timeline section, the introduction section appears to be absracting out the 'fact' (as per the timeline section) that the violence itself was started by Anti-CAA rioters at a Pro-CAA gathering. This careful wording of the first sentence seems to be targeting the Google's rich result (which only includes the first line on a search result). The only mention of the initial violence in the entirety of the 5 paragraph introduction is the singular line - "After Mishra's ultimatum, violence erupted".

Riots are acts of violence, and not to-and-fro speeches by politicians, and the first act of bloodshed must be very clearly depicted. The only sentence in the Introduction section that has any clarity on the beginnings of the violence is this sentence - "Initially, Hindu and Muslim attacks were equally lethal"

Requesting that the Introduction section be rephrased with journalistic integrity and not be written emotionally. arjunv 13:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The lede is fine as it stands.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit hyprocritical to say it's "fine" not to fix our mistakes? If a Wikipedia article is not about putting down concreate information, we might as well merge "Article" section and "Talk" section. It was 4 months before to date that Fowler&fowler wrote "Developing the article main body, and eventually rewriting the lead" for the ease of getting this properly. Ain't it time yet? Even if not, am not citing content from any new sources here, but a piece of content from the article main body which appears to be politically abstracted away from the lead, which we all know is what most people only read. arjunv 13:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystupidstory (talk • contribs)

No, as first I would have to agree we have made any mistakes.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay. So you feel that the timeline section has a mistake where it mentions the first act of violence in the riot was "protesters were reported to have hurled stones at the pro-CAA gathering"? Or do you feel that the first act of violence in a riot is not important enough to be included in the lead section for an article on a riot? arjunv 13:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No I am saying that the lede accurately summarises the important parts of the body. If we include this do we also add the attack on the peaceful women? The lede presents a neutral (for both sides) summery.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Marking this as Answered, since it has been responded to. In the future please seek WP:CONSENSUS before making an edit request of this kind. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The Article needs to be seriously reworked.

The article stated the riots happened due to pro-CAA mobs attacking anti-CAA mobs. Or quite simply it was caused chiefly by Hindu mobs attacking Muslims. But in the latest developments, it has been discovered that Tahir Hussain, who is a Muslim planned and executed the riots. He apparently wanted to teach Hindus a lesson as per his confession to the police. So, I think this article needs to be reworked to highlight the true perpetrators of the riots. I have added some sources too. I have provided quite a number of news articles. And the editing required would need to be very heavy. So, I cannot request edits over here. So, I request someone to rework this whole article. 1) https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/tahir-hussain-admits-to-planning-north-east-delhi-riots-police-report/story-uruyQ6ew8t3K9V5uzLCAgL.html 2) https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/suspended-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-admits-his-role-in-delhi-violence-police-2273075 3) https://zeenews.india.com/india/over-rs-1-62-crores-sent-to-tahir-hussain-ishrat-jahan-from-from-gulf-countries-ahead-of-delhi-riots-2300457.html 4) https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/delhi-riots-ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-confession-mastermind-behind-north-east-delhi-violence-639145 5) https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/tahir-hussain-was-given-task-of-collecting-glass-bottles-during-delhi-violence-report/ar-BB17v1L1 6) https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/aug/03/tahir-hussain-admits-his-involvement-in-northeast-delhi-riots-police-interrogation-report-2178566.html 7) https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/tahir-hussain-confesses-masterminding-delhi-riots-with-ex-jnu-student-umar-khalid-khalid-saifi-says-wanted-to-teach-lesson-to-hindus/ar-BB17tOPg 8) https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/ex-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain-confesses-to-being-delhi-riots-mastermind-report/ar-BB17uLNl 9) https://satyavijayi.com/tahir-hussain-admits-being-mastermind-of-delhi-anti-hindu-riots-along-with-umar-khalid-and-khalid-saifi-pfi-role-also-exposed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.211.55.146 (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Please read to umpteen threads above about this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were gonna do it. Who'll do it?

As there is no agreement no one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So, someone has to read all of the above-shared articles and then has to agree on my demand for an edit being valid? Please enlighten me. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.211.55.146 (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ish, they do not have to read all of them just enough to decide it may violate (for example) wp:blp. Yes you need to get wp:consensus to get an edit done.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Now one clue is, if its already been asked 5 times that day and rejected, its going to be rejected the next time as well.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2020 (2)

Change the reference link used for the casualty count from the wire article at reference 9, to the external article at thepolisproject.com or another one at thewire.in

The existing article mentions multiple numbers, 51 & 53, as "obtained from the official list". arjunv 08:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)