Talk:2020 Delhi riots

Archives (Index)

2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2022/April 2022/May

Police

What about cops inefficiency and involvements. Reports showing that they could have stopped this before it could have started rather helped the pro-CAA and right wings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Dey subrata (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We must not use twitter. Telegraph, Scroll is fine. Verification result of Altnews can be added --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have added twitter link of journalist reporting from site, that thread is of Reuters' journalist. Dey subrata (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, I do understand but the twitter feed is raw and has not undergone uditorial oversight. hence unfit. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok lets wait for media articles on the same. Dey subrata (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed a para which uses tweets as source. Let's wait out for more info. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 22:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The removed materials are restored, second part of the discussion is about the police involvement, not the journos thing. However, police involvement articles and video reporting by prime times of channels already been published, will be added soon by evening. Dey subrata (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray tag for archiving. I am just in awe seeing number of edit requests and their raw comments of name calling, how much people are brainwashed. Dey subrata (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ignorance by police

can we add a new section we can add the role of Police all pro and cons. In some cases they can be seen they are with rioters and targeting victims. Also they were ignoring SOS calls. few refs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Jorvee (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Rashid Jorvee, We have to follow WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Please present the proposed draft here on talk page first, to get consensus. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Sure, let me draft somthing. thank you. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Jorvee, yes, this would be quite a significant addition, please draft something for review. SerTanmay (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Jorvee Check the above mentioned links. It will help you to build the section. Dey subrata (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Rashid Jorvee, Did you create the draft. You can do it in your user sandbox. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay Dey subrata DBigXray I have drafted little bit and available in my sandbox. I also tag you guys there. Please take a look and get it merge if you find helpful. Rashid Jorvee (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Shooter at Jafrabad

In the afternoon, a shooter fired eight rounds of bullets indiscriminately and also pointed his pistol at a cop who was trying to confront him. Per altnews, the man was a part of anti-CAA mob and initially was mistaken to be a part of pro-CAA crowd. The shooter was later identified by the police was arrested next day after an FIR was registered against him.

References

@DBigXray: I have undone your edit. Multiple sources, including NDTV, have reported his arrest. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 09:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And I have moved it here on the talk page. Please do not WP:EW over this. This is a content dispute and it needs to be discussed for wP:CONSENSUS. Please respond to the issues I raised in the section above. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Your concerns were about man shooting the police constable are already taken care of. In my edit, it is clear that "man pointed gun at policeman", and NOT that "it was him who shot the policeman". This is backed up by the sources added. Anything else? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 09:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, yes, why is this unknown man being singled out with complete disregard to wP:BLPNAME ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He's the only person among all protesters (pro or anti-CAA) who had a gun, and pointed at a police constable, and fired shots using the gun. The name can be dropped. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 09:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, "He's the only person who had a gun" wow, thats a big claim. source please. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Per reports so far, yes. You have any source for other people brandishing guns at policemen and shooting? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 09:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it is you who is claiming he is special and deserves a mention in a para. Based on 50% bullet wounds, many were carrying guns and I dont consider him worthy enough of a mention. I would rather cover the deaths and the arson . ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

"I dont consider him worthy enough of a mention" - So basically anything you believe should be there is what is being mentioned. Does that now create a bias towards what you only believe is necessary? [Times of India], ABP News have considered this to be important to dispel the fake news that is spreading around. It is imperative that a section of this man should also be included. --Datta (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

And a man firing shots illegally in front of the police is not relevant? Similar incidents of shooting were also covered in other article about anti-CAA protests. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 10:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray i think the issue here is there is an identifiable perpetrator.The person confronted the police officer,shoved him and shot the bullets into the air perhaps as an act of intimidation.There was no reported injuries to the police officer however.User:UrbanCentrist

Yes, I am totally aware of what he did. Perpetrator of what exactly ? The problem here is, he is of no encyclopedic value to Wikipedia. had he been a brutal murderer for a few people, he probably could have found a mention here. But that is not the case, for now. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray The incident can be interpreted that it represents a single identifiable point of escalation of violence.I think when someone reads this article it would be useful information to understand that the event included an armed gunman confronting a police officer — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanCentrist (talk • contribs) 16:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT your posts. Interepreted as such by whom ? If an WP:RS says that then we can probably add that. As of now this is of no useful value. Here is a question. Do you think that a gunman confronting a cop is more useful or a cop shot dead ? I would say the latter. regards. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Quoting the India Today article "as tension continued to simmer in Delhi's Jaffrabad and Maujpur areas a day after clashes, a youth opened fire on the streets on Monday afternoon in the same area while the police tried to control him.A man was seen pointing his country-made pistol at the police personnel on the Jaffrabad-Maujpur road. The man fired 8 rounds before the police overpowered him. He was later identified as Shahrukh, a local." I think a cop being shot dead and gunman confronting a cop are both useful information.With regards to the confrontation it was an observable incident where as the dead shot cop was hidden in the fog of violence.Since a timeline is mentioned it would be useful to provide that information as it was a unique circumstance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanCentrist (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray I have added this one previously seeing the coverage by all prominent media, and also taking care of the WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NOTE polices for which name was not added. Someone might have added something else after my edits last night, for which the discussion is here now. My line was "In the afternoon, a shooter fired eight rounds of bullets indiscriminately and also pointed his pistol at a cop who was trying to confront him. The shooter was later identified and was detained and questioned about his intentions." Dey subrata (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, and UrbanCentrist please look at the big picture 25 dead and more than 200 injured. And here we are bickering about a guy who waved his gun and fired in the air (didn;t even kill or injure any one). I suggest we focus on other major points that need to be added. I really appreciate UrbanCentrist, patiently discussing this with me, unfortunately I am still not convinced if we should add it. Let me ask, are foreign media, Reuters, BBC covering this ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No I am just saying that was my line, and if it could be added, secondly, I am also waiting for police to release any statement on identification of shooters in several incidents, then can be added I think. We can wait. Dey subrata (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes i think it is preferable to wait.Should the other shooters be identified it would be not as important to cover this.--UrbanCentrist (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hope the fact of foreign media coverage is not used as a measuring stick to edit the document and add facts. Foreign media is not free from biased reporting just as Indian media is not free from biased reporting. They are not a yardstick by any means. Also if Shahrukh the shooter has done nothing wrong then why was he arrested? He used an illegal country made weapon, brandished it and used it to threaten a police officer. All of the above mentioned are offences under Indian law.

Delhi Police Sources now clarify that Shahrukh has not been arrested and search for him continues.

• The police now says they never arrested him. Tomorrow they will say his name is Amitabh.[1] --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

NOt true, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/times-fact-check/news/fact-check-ankit-sharmas-brother-denies-saying-his-brother-was-killed-by-those-chanting-jai-shri-ram/articleshow/74355310.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psha12 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the biased New Delhi media is hyping this one person only because he is Muslim. We should not be swayed by the chest-thumping of the Unionist new channels. Firing is a regular part of these riots, and hundreds of shots have been fired by what must have been hundreds of people - including the Police - but the racist Lutyens media octopus is only focussing on this one person. We should follow the global media here and give it its due weightage, while simultaneously utilising the Non-Hindi media to provide proper perspective from within South Asia itself. So far, this article relies too much on the Chanakyapur channels, and as a result comes across as too biased in favour of the Hindi Supremacist Sangh Parivar and the oppressive Indian Union Government. I hope editors will redress this bias in future edits, and not allow Wikipedia to become a platform for New Delhi's racist - or, as they say in South Asia, 'Manu-wadi' - propaganda. WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:54, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the lead

User:QEDK can you help in expanding the lead to cover the article. The lead doesn't include anything about the violence. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, why not! --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:DBigXray With reference to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots and 2002 Gujarat Riots articles, is it really necessary to include the "Lead Figures" section in this article? Aswin8 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The Delhi High Court has asked the Police to file cases against them for hate speech that caused the violence. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

And just like in the above mentioned two articles, can that matter not be mentioned in the main body of the article, rather than in a half-filled section of "Lead Figures"? Aswin8 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The other articles are different from this one. Here a protest was going on. And a leader brought his supporters to get engaged. Secondly, the other names mentioned who delivred hate speech which is now being asked by court to take actions. So appropriate enough to put it. Dey subrata (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Aswin8, it is mentioned both in the body as well as infobox. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing Kapil Mishra photo

The article in its current form has a lot of details other than the provocative statements by Kapil Mishra. His photo just takes most of the focus away from all those details, as if he's the most important part of the entire article. I say his picture should be removed. Discuss if disagree. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, He is the central figure in this riot. He has to be mentioned and hence his pic is relevant. I have reverted the removal. I will add more quotes from Mishra. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am suggesting only to remove his picture, not any other content, as pictures grab focus. Makes the article look like more about him than anything else. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, I am against this proposal for reasons above. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, DBigXray Probably the picture of the person, who is arrested for shooting the policeman, is more appropriate to show the sense of riots? Secondly why the incident is swept under the carpet in this article? —staryash (talk, contribs) 05:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

How Kapil Mishra became the central figure of the riots? Is there any direct evidence that his statements lead to the riots. New evidences and news reports confirming that the riots were planned way ahead of his remarks. Tahir Hussain's home was used as a central point of the riots with alleged killing of people happened there. Why he is not the central figure of the riot? Who decides it on Wikipedia? Bishupriyaparam (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

What relevance does Amit Shah's photo have to the article? M4DU7 (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

M4DU7, he is calling the shots. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "calling the shots" and why his picture is needed? M4DU7 (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Home Minister is the in-charge of Law and order in Delhi. He controls Delhi Police and all the central paramilitary fources like RAF, CRPF, etc. All the law and order meetings are being held under his chairmanship. Hence all the responsibility for allowing this riot to spread and the deaths directly falls on him. This is exacly the reason wby opposition parties are asking for his head.⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

What the opposition asks for is hardly relevant here. I'd agree with you if the SC or HC called out Shah and held him responsible for the riot to spread. But otherwise, it is highly inappropriate to divert the focus to him. M4DU7 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

M4DU7, I am expanding the content on Amit Shah and recent updates. Apparently Shah chaired 3 meetings in 24 hours, I will return to this discussion once ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

M4DU7 The article did not say that HM Shah is reposnsible, the photo clearly mentioned the law and order is his responsibilities, I don't see any confusion, CM Kejriwal used the CrPC section 130 and asked the para-millitary force from Shah, but he eventualy refused on 25th citing everthing was looked after. So yes, its very relevant to add the photograph of the person whose responsibilty was to maintain law and order. Dey subrata (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He is not a central figure in the riot since lot of such inciting statements were made by saveral leaders.Lot of unnecessary fear-mongering was done which led to this riot. Priyaraj544 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Priyaraj544, The riots started a few hours after his provocative speech. Please read the news of Delhi high court today. Even Hon. HC asked to file case for inciting the riot. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be better if this article is written without any self emotions and biasedness involved. Whole timeline should be mentioned from december protests, and provocative speeches made all over India, And pictures should be added more for the riots. Putting pictures of ministers totally takes away the story. Sra1du (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sra1du Yes the article is written in a unbaised way only, if someone did something wrong, it should be added, there is no baisedness in that. "..from december protests, and provocative speeches made all over India"- Does other leader brought their supporters by saying "come there with huge number and will reply the jaffrabad protesters" ? Does any other person give such ultimatum to police and directly challenging police if not protesters removed they will take law on hand? Did thakur, a&p verma deliver hate speech or not, and is there anyother leader who deliver such in Delhi? Who are the people against whom court asked police to take actions? Better get your rationale straight and discuss something better than whataboutism. And those picture are not taking anything away from story, no one forbade you to read the article and to just look at picture and even description in the picture clearly says what its describing. Dey subrata (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey Subrata (talk · contribs) How is that the statements of Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi in Delhi during the elections calling out Muslims to fight against the law passed by the parliament are not the reason behind the riots? Bishupriyaparam (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add a line on the AAP Counciller Tahir also. Also, I dnt think the word persecution should be used. Instead, use the word ethnic and religious clash Arkadeep Dey (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo.. I meant to say that the word persecution should not be used. Arkadeep Dey (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

And through some articles of opindia,swarajya, I came to know that 'NAARA A TAQBEER' , 'ALLAH HU AKBAR' were raised. Pls do add if relevant. Arkadeep Dey (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add Tahir Hussain's name too he is a bigger stakeholder of destruction than any of the names mentioned above Truetothewiki123 (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Truetothewiki123, This thread is not for discussing Tahir, we have a separate section to discuss Tahir, read the comments there and reply there if you want to. Arkadeep Deyopindia,swarajya are not Reliable source ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Who decides that OpIndia and Swarajya are not reliable sources and NDTV, Indian Express are not? Is there anything factually wrong in what they have reported? Bishupriyaparam (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Bishupriyaparam, WP:RSN decides that, you can read the old discussions on these websites in its WP:ARCHIVE. OpIndia and Swarajya are non reliable propaganda sources they cannot be used on Wikipedia. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead figures

we didn't find any statement and comment to provoke the people towards riot from Amanatullah Khan. Please remove that person from leadfigure, since he has no link with incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Jorvee (talk • contribs)

 Done Indeed, there is a user who is repeatedly violating WP:BLP by addin git again and again, I have asked admins to sanction him. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 06:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Ashishyadav400 This is an encyclopedia, not your social media timeline, WP:NPOV and irrational and imaginary opinions are not added in wiki, period. And who said that there is a role ? Dey subrata (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done there is no connection Dey subrata (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Waris Pathan of AIMIM party threatened tht 15 crore muslims would take over 100 crore hindus inciting hate Also tahir hussain of AAP party (which is the party in power in Delhi) had an organized mob of about 300 men in his multistoried building hurling petrol bombs, acid , stones and bricks and is alleged to have been involved in the murder of IB Official Ankit Sharma Aditya Satnalika India (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• That comment is not related to Delhi riots. Tahir has been discussed above. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

References

Remove names of Anurag Thakur and Pravesh Verma, there statements were made much before the riots and have no direct role in inciting it. Why Tahir Hussain is not included when he is under suspicsion of actually carrying out violence while all others lead figures mentioned have no such role ? Ravi1991ss (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the thread on Tahir Hussain to understand why. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Before you had cited the reason as to no reliable source so as to include tahir hussain but now that i have provied a link above from ndtv you should add his name to the main article Aditya Satnalika India (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the comments at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Role_of_Tahir_Hussain⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Like Tahir Hussain, Kapil Mishra and others too had not been proven guilty yet, so why are they included as Lead Figures ? Ravi1991ss (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been explained in great detail at Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Role_of_Tahir_Hussain. If you cannot be bothered to read, then I cannot help you. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/delhi-police-registers-fir-against-aap-councillor-tahir-hussain/article30935161.eceMalabarspices (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

One sided news being published

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add the names of Tahir Hussain, Waris Pathan, Faizul Hassan, Sharjeel Imam, Amanatullah Khan, RJ Sayema, Manish Sisodiya and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra's names in the Lead Figures list of North East Delhi Riots Rishivam2020 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No source given to support the claims. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignore the typos.. Arkadeep Dey (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2020

The riots were instigated by Waris Pathan who openly called for muslim community to wage a war against Hindus. He is the prime sponsor of Shaheen bagh which has become the symbol of Anti CAA protest.

Liberals are trying to pass the buck on Kapil Mishra, BJP leader just to hide the hate speech of Shoaib Jamai, Waris Pathan and Assaudin Owaisi. Preeti Dhawan Walia (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Article is totally one sided

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

Also factually incorrect when it says peaceful protest by Misra gets attacked by pro CAA group in the very first section Srinivaks (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see what the Hon. High Court said about his speech today in Court. Will you say that HC is biased ?

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

I also want to add that this article is totally biased not mentioning Amanatullah Khan, or that bus drivers in Maharastra are also being beaten up due to this. https://www.altnews.in/video-of-bus-driver-beaten-up-in-maharashtra-shared-with-communal-angle-amid-delhi-riots/. Wiki moderators should look into the bias characteristics of this article. --Datta (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Datta, what is the relation of amanatulla or bus drivers in maharashtra with delhi riots ? please explain with evidence ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

 Not done POV and irrational opinions. Has been discussed many and several times. Dey subrata (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

References

Pls add the incidents of vandalism of Hindu properties,as you have mentioned many times about torching of Muslim properties... [[2]]... Arkadeep Dey (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Arkadeep Dey, Please provide the draft cotnent that you want to add along with the link of reliable source supporting it. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've provided the link

Arkadeep Dey (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Politically influenced article

Role of islamists who are attacking homes of residents & police with petrol bombs completely whitewashed. No mention of provocative speeches by Waris Pathan & Amanatullah khan Indostar1331 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Waris Pathan & Amanatullah khan are not related to this riot. Provide ref and content you want to add. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

 Not done irrational commentary. Dey subrata (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Anurag Thakur was in no way connected to the riots. Aditya Satnalika India (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Aditya Satnalika India, The Delhi High Court had asked police to file cases against them for giving hate speech in Delhi. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Shahrukh

The all editors who edit here I want their opinions. According to my point of view the incident of Shahrukh should be added. The incident gets much coverage. Though I added it earlier but later it was removed. What do you think?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, why do you think it merits a mention here ? All he did was wave a gun and fire in the air. There is no evidence he killed or injure anyone. Not worth to be mentioned due to WP:BLPNAME ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Yes he did not kill or injure anybody. But, his video went on viral. And directly firing to police is not a common thing. If we should not mention his name as he is not notable can the incident be added in the article?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, If you read international new sites, like reuters, BBC, you will find that they did not cover this incident. why ? because it was not a major incident. Lot of videos became viral for example the guy being dragged on road, one singing Jan gan man, The man breaking masjid minaret, There are so many. We cannot possibly cover all of this. I would suggest you to focus on more important things like Killing of IB officer, Killing of Constable, or other major incidents, lot of them needs to be expanded. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

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

He should be mentioned by name as this was an important development. Since when is the brazen threatening of an unarmed police officer a minor thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.228.66.14 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussed above several times. Name is not required to be added per WP:NOTE, WP:BLPNAME and there were other shooter too, and seeing nobody got killed by him but other shooter did kill, it again fails notability per WP:NBIO. And police did not give any clarification of identification of shooter who killed people. So no we can't add such things. Dey subrata (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Amit Shah’s answer

• The Delhi pogrom 2020 is Amit Shah’s answer to an election defeat

Interesting article. Can we use anything from this article ? --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

No. It's an opinion piece. And only that. For example, second para first line "The Delhi pogrom of 2020 is state-sponsored. Anyone who cannot see that is pretending to be blind". Really? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Everybody in Delhi knew this, its actually NOT opinion, its the bitter fact after all. Dey subrata (talk) 04:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Need a section for "Investigation into the riots"

Preliminary investigation has revealed involvement of two gangs.[3] —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 04:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

More sources [4],[5],[6]. I'll make a draft. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 10:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Role of Tahir Hussain

The family of Intelligence Bureau (IB) officer Ankit Sharma who was brutally killed by rioters in Northeast Delhi’s Chand Bagh, has accused local AAP leader Tahir Hussain of being behind the attack. “Tahir Hussain the AAP councilor is behind the murder of my brother. Anti CAA protestors took my brother and three others to the building which belongs to Tahir Hussain”, Ankit’s brother was quoted as saying.

The family also alleged that the rioters were shooting from the AAP councillor's home and were also equipped with swords and petrol bombs. It added that Ankit was killed by the mob while he was trying to help civilians being trapped by the rioters.

Ankit’s father too pinned the killing on the AAP councillor and described how the family began fearing the worst at 2 AM on Wednesday (26 February). They were later informed of his death by one of their neighbours.

The family has alleged that Ankit’s body had bullet, stab wounds and his throat too was slit. The cops meanwhile have sent the body for a postmortem.

Ankit had joined the IB in 2017 and was posted as a driver in the MT department. His body was dumped in a drain by the rioters.

Tahir Hussain and waris pathan role on this riots should be added. Tahir Hussain house used for throwing stones and petrol bombs. Evidences as per various interviews suggest 4 men were forcefully taken into his home 1 of them was ankit sharma. And later 3 dead bodies found. Ankit sharma's brother said he saw his brother taken away from his own eyes. This is totally hijacked page by propagandist ignoring facts. Sanwat (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about Waris Pathan, but councilor Tahir Hussain's role has been reported by different news websites. Adding sources for further discussion. [7],[8],[9] cc @DBigXRay:. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 05:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Waris pathan speech responsible for riots Sanwat (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that Tahir Hussain is involved. But, my point of view is he might be involved and he mightn't be involved. First there are many sources available where he was blamed for the killing. And there are sources available there denied the allegations. But, The police so far have not commented on the allegations against Hussain. And even no comment from high court about him. And even the source I have presented here there it seems X party says he is involved but Y party says he was not involved. Let's wait for better sources. But, its true the relatives directly alleged him. So it can be added according to this point.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Family's claim is based on a video which claim to be of Hussain's. So lets wait for any fact check article and some better articles of the said video and the incidents, we can add then. Dey subrata (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

"Family's claim is based on a video"? Not in the source[10] —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, other articles say so. Secondly, he said police asked him to leave home which supposed to have done, as security of MLA is police's responsibilty. So police can also verify this. Third, he was IB officer and his death is totally different from other, it seems fishy to me, it could be a case of murder for other cases taking advantage of this riot. Wait for more clear and fact checking articles. Can be added. Dey subrata (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Much more than "alleged by family". Sources [11],[12]. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There are also some sources there NDTV India, Aajtak, Zee News and so on. I think it should be added now.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Authenticity of claims need to be verified, as I said, let fact check articles be there, and more clear article, and as Delhi police can clarify the same as he was asked to leave home by police. Wait for it, don't just headbang the wall to establish a point. Dey subrata (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why Tahir Hussain incident is not added till now. Please see Outlook, Navbharat Times, News Nation and so on. Patrol Bomb, acid, stone etc found from the roof of his house.S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, because these are not providing the full picture. NDTV report shows that he was asked by police to leave his house after which the gangs put those things there. There is his side of the events as well. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Biman1989 (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC) We can see that timenow.com,opindia.com,indiatoday is not considered as reliable but ndtv.com has been considered as reliable for some strange reason. Tahir Hussains role mentioned in multiple media houses. Everybody knows that many times ndtv.com also spread false/propaganda news too.

Biman1989, You are supposed to sign at the end. Timesnow and Opindia are considered not reliable, you can read about it in the discussion thread at WP:RSN. it is not my problem that you are utterly ignorant that they are propaganda sources. If you think NDTV is propaganda source then post your evidence at WP:RSN and get it banned ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Dey subrata, how about we add a section on Tahir Hussain mentioning both sides of the arguments? Can then add and update as information is properly verified. SerTanmay (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, any such proposed draft would first need to be discussed here per wP:CONSENSUS ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, how about I take personal responsibility and create a draft on my sandbox? We will then discuss it here and add it after concensus. SerTanmay (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, sounds good to me. Also we must include both sides. I have heard Tahir's interview and it is quite obvious that he is being framed and dragged in this case for getting political advantage. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Agreed, but the issue deserves mention here especially if he is being framed. The people need to know the tactics used by Delhi Police. SerTanmay (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten to show that the AAP politicians were responsible for the riots.

Links:- Times Now, Deccan Herald, OpIndia, News18, India Today

See these also-Times of India for suspected role of Nasir and Irfan gang and Times Now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, No, there is no evidence for your claims and I must remind you about wP:TE. you may soon find yourself blocked if you continue this type of behavior. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Why? Are all those links unacceptable?—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Spasiba5, No your comment before those links is unacceptable, who do you think yourself as ? Chief Justice of India ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Btw this happened recently

"Delhi violence: FIR registered under section 302 IPC (Punishment for murder) at Dayalpur police station, AAP Councilor Tahir Hussain named in the 'Details' section of the FIR."

https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1233046365170589700 43.224.131.12 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Please keep your comment focused on the topic and not on the users. read the discussion above. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 15:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, you said, "I have heard Tahir's interview and it is quite obvious that he is being framed and dragged in this case for getting political advantage." Where is the neutrality in that statement? How is it obvious to you if you are neutral? Also where are the sources supporting your point of view that he is being framed? 43.224.131.12 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral (WP:NPOV) does not mean you cannot share your opinions on the talk page. The source of this piece of information is Tahir's interview on NDTV. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Proposal

There is a broad consensus that there should be a a section covering Ankit Sharma's murder and or Tahir Hussain's involvment. Following is my draft proposal for the same, edits are welcome , but we do need to post a section on this since it is a major event in this incident which cannot be excluded.

Ankit Sharma Murder

On 26th February, a body was recovered from a drain in the Chand Bagh area of Northeast Delhi. The deceased was later identified as 26-years old Ankit Sharma who worked as a security assistant in the Intelligence Bureau. Family members of the victim soon alleged that Sharma was actually kidnapped by a mob of 15-20 men and taken inside a building belonging to Tahir Hussain, an AAP councilor from Nehru Vihar area of Mustafabad. Ravinder Sharma, the victim's father was quoted as saying "My son was coming back from duty. 15-20 people came from Tahir's building and took him along with a few others. When people went to free them, they were fired upon and attacked with petrol bombs. Acid was also thrown on them" .

Meanwhile an unverified video circulated on social media showed Tahir Hussain with a stick in his hand with several men on the rooftop of his building, some of whom had covered their faces. On 27th February, some media agencies reported to have found large number of stones, several petrol bombs and some unverified chemicals on the rooftop of Hussain's building. Following media reports, Hussain released a video on social media refuting the allegations leveled against him. He denied inciting the mob and has claimed that he and his family were moved out of the building by the police who shifted them to a safe location on February 24th, one day prior to when Sharma was allegedly kidnapped. “I worked to stop violence, I’m innocent. I stopped people from climbing up my building. I requested the police to be present in the area as my building was being targeted and could be used for wrongful purposes. Delhi Police was present at the building, only they can tell what exactly happened," Hussain was quoted as saying by news agency ANI.

The Delhi Police registered an FIR against Hussain on the basis of the complaint by Sharma's father, for allegedly being involved in the killing of Sharma. Hussain has been charged under sections 365 and 302 of the IPC, in which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment or death.. The police also sealed Hussain's house and factory for further investigation.

References

A14i12 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: Some of the sources have videos embedded in them. Please view them before discussing the veracity of the source.

A14i12 (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly this article is one-sided. I request experienced editors like Kautilya3 and The9Man to help. Please!—Spasiba5 (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I note that the version above is completely unacceptable as it is full of unverified allegations and political accusations. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia's stringent policies on WP:BLP, WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Dey subrata please check out User:SerTanmay/sandbox for my draft on the same. You may edit it to make the language more neutral or make any other necessary changes. SerTanmay (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray How is this biased or unverified? Each and every line is corroborated by a reliable source? There are no assumptions or accusations. What exactly do you think is unverified and a violation of policies? I have mentioned both the sides of the story with proper sources. Both BLPNAME and BLPCRIME are not violated because all the names listed are widely disseminated in social media as well as news agencies and Hussain is already a public figure. The only name which can be omitted is that of Ankit Sharma's father's. The only reason you think this is biased is that you are rooting for Hussain because somehow you are convinced that he is innocent. The matter is under investigation lets not form opinions just yet. It is abhorring that you are not posting anything about Tahir despite him dominating news coverage today. This is perhaps the second-most important investigation pertaining to the case yet somehow it doesn't find any mention on the page. If Rahul Solanki's father can be quoted then why not Ankit Sharma's. I have quoted both his father and Husaain. The only one who is being biased ae the moderators who are desperately trying to portray this incident as a pogrom. A14i12 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

the WP:BLP concerns are for Tahir. He is not a notable person and cannot be discussed or mentioned on wikipedia unless he is convicted in a court of law. The reasons are in the links I gave. Wikipedia does not care if IT cells keep chanting his name on social media. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray How is a politician not a public figure? He is an elected councilman, hence a notable person. Just because you or me haven't heard his name before does not mean he is a private person. Not only "IT-cell" all major news channels are investigating Tahir. None of the sources I mentioned are right wing sources. It does not violate either of the links mentioned. Please keep prejudice aside and look at things objectively. A14i12 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, A14i12, please check out the draft on my sandbox. If necessary, we can remove all the content of questionable verifiability. Have currently kept it there as "allegations". SerTanmay (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not neutral in this all fiasco so I will restrain myself taking sides here and making any major edits.

But regarding Hussain's matter, an FIR is registered in his name for the charge of Ankit Sharma murder and his party suspended him from the primary membership. This matter is widely covered by almost all the media including NDTV. This surely worth a mention in this article. - The9Man | (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• DBigXray & SerTanmay just watched this and the fact is Hussain seems to give enough evidence and chronology to defend his side but I don't see the same on the basis of which the family accused. Interview of Hussain- Interesting fact, every house was targeted, police came which were asked to come by Huassain only, his house was taken care of by Police, I am not convinced of family's claim as there is no fact or evidence. Dey subrata (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• DBigXray and SerTanmay my first question is why his death is more important than anyothers death?? We have not included other gruesome murders and deaths. Second, its been clear that he was asked by police to leave, but police's delay in revealing the developments is surprising, atleast they can clarify to media when and at what circumstances they asked his family to vacate. And I have gone through the sand box, there ae excessive, give it another revision it can be summarised more. And also search fr any fact-check articles on videos and photographs they are mentioning cause the claims are based on those photographs, if not wait fr such fact checking articles too. Dey subrata (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A14i12, as per my understanding this particular politician did nothing news-worthy until today. If he did, then there would be scope to create an entire article on him. SerTanmay (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, good points put forward. Have edited the sandbox to reflect the alleged nature of the images and videos. SerTanmay (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed Dey subrata, has raised some very valid points. let me make a list of it as we would need to decide on each problem

1. Ankit Sharma is not a notable person neither on a high post, his death, is not any special than those 40 people killed by the rioters.
2. The circumstances leave a lot of questions, why did police asked him to leave instead of giving him protection in his house. If they asked him to leave, how is he responsible if rioters entered his house, after he left. Why did police allowed rioters to enter his house.
3. As Ravish Kumar NDTV said in Prime Time today, he seems to be used as an excuse by BJP to attack AAP.
4. Tahir has been suspended from AAP, so he is no longer an AAP concillor.
5. Tahir is a non notable person hence WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME come into picture, no matter what news channels are saying, unless he is convicted, we cannot discuss the unproven allegation as it has direct impact on this living person.
6. The only uncontroversial content than can be added is that "the dead body of Ankit Sharma, a Security Assistant in IB was found in Jafrabad" ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

   Points 1, 2, 3: Agreed.

   Point 4: Edited in my sandbox. (Should I move the draft here?)

   Point 5: I wasn't aware of this. Was about to ask how the BJP perpetrators can be added but not this but noticed that they all have wiki articles and Hussain doesn't.

   6. Was already added by me in the "25 February" section. SerTanmay (talk) 18:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Point5, yes, you are correct the difference here is being notable and having an article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Notability should not be judged on the basis of whether or not there is a Wikipedia page about the Hussain. I couldn't find any wikipedia policy which explicitly mentions that people without wikipedia articles are not public figures. He is a elected councilman, which definitely makes him a public figure. A14i12 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC) DBigXray Now even if he is not a public figure is non notable, mentioning allegations against him is still not violating WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE since we are citing high-quality sources and are mentioning that everything is just an allegation as of now. If the post doesn't misrepresent an allegation or an opinion as a fact, Hussain should be mentioned to give proper context to readers.A14i12 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has strict policies on WP:BLP and for good reasons. You can click the link and understand why. The bottom line that you need to understand is Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Dont try to make it one. what is acceptable for newspaper is often unacceptable for Wikipedia. This is one case. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Thats just an arbitrary opinion. I actually read the entire page, especially WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPNAME. And mentioning Tahir's name in an article does not violate any of these policies. If I were to start a page on him then things might have been different. But just mentioning him in an article ,citing high quality secondary sources, is just fair game. The rational of mentioning or not mentioning an individual should not be a wiki page since that is not explicitly mention anywhere.A person who doesn't have his own wiki article can be surely considered a public figure.A14i12 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC) DBigXray case in point the Samjhauta Express terror attack. All the accused are named despite there being no convictions and despite neither of them being notable persons. Tahir can tomorrow be acquitted and that can be added at a later stage but right now mentioning his name is of utmost importance.A14i12 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

it might be of "utmost importance" to you, not for Wikipedia. let him be convicted first. Considering that all AAP MLAs have been exonerated by the court despite being repeatedly framed by Police, he might also follow suit. But then how would you undo the damage. Wikipedia needs a conviction for non notable criminals exactly for that reason. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, Dey subrata, Just as expected the family member of Ankit sharma changed their statement. [13] They told WSJ that Hindu mobs killed Sharma, now they are saying something else. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A14i12 Whoa...whoa, hold on, utmost importance..for whom? why? I'm not going to add a single line without evidence or acceptable rationale. DCP Alok was present, police asked to leave home, they have taken care of his home, so police to verify that, secondly, the video that gone viral, in the interview he accept its him, and defined the full chronology, and can be seen he is forcing people to leave terrace and people can be seen pouring water to stop fire, and from video its also been shown that not only his house but all houses near by captured by mob, so again, there is lot of weight on his side, seeing that the family did not produce any substantial argument based on evidence, its evident the family perhaps been misleaded by some one, finally, he was a IB officer, and his death is totally different from other, which itslef makes fishy. No absolutely nothing to be added in the article. I actually read the entire page, especially WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPNAME, I am afraiD then you are one classic case of WP:COMPETENCE as lot of rationale produced for you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray It is of utmost importance because that is what dominated news coverage today and will probably continue to dominate in the coming days.Also in my knowledge it is the only case where an accused has been named. Everyone is investigating about the same including NDTV and CNNTV18. Stop imposing your biases as Wikipedia's policies. Nowhere is it written that we should wait until the court convicts or acquits an individual for committing a crime before mentioning his name. If that were the case most crime related topics would have been empty articles. There are countless pages related to unsolved murders and terror attacks where accused have been named without a conviction, an acquittal and sometimes even when charges were not pressed. So please stop misleading readers by saying that mentioning Hussain's name violates WP policy. Here are some of the articles that I can think of right off the top of my head, where non convicts and non notables were mentioned: (Just imagine a Samjhauta Express article without naming Lt Col Purohit. Isn't that absurd??)

A14i12 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done though the mention of incident has been added in the article but not the allegations which does not have any substantial rationale and evidence rather article, videos and rationale suggests otherwise. And such thing will be added surely once police clarify with evidence when and how many times he called polcie, when police reached his home, why they asked Hussain to leave home and what happened when he was not there and when returned or any fact check articles. Dey subrata (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• A14i12, Please repeat after me.
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Wikipedia is not a newspaper
• Dey subrata did you see my comment above. "Just as expected the family member of Ankit sharma changed their statement. [14] They told WSJ that Hindu mobs killed Sharma, now they are saying something else. " ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray Yes thats why tagged as not done. As from begining it was looking like someone misleaded them. I think I will close the discussion. There is nothing left to discuss. Dey subrata (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DBigXray, Dey subrata, After the WSJ article I agree that we should wait for the news to be verified before adding to the article. Will however maintain an updated copy on my sandbox to add later. SerTanmay (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

For strange reason I saw few People continuously defending Tahir Hussain with other guys. Some guy saying why only talkabout Tahir or Kapil. The reason why Tahir Hussain and Kapil Mishra's name are emerging more than anyone else is that both are democratically elected members and there are more responsibility on them. They are not common citizen. When elected members gives hate speeches or uses their building to create riots, both provoked common public to do hate mongering. I agree that Tahir Hussain is still not proved guilty ,FIR lodged and APP suspended him but same applied to Kapil mishra also. No proof gathered where we can say because of only kapil Mishra's speech it happened. So using "Where is proof" logic in one's case and ignoring it for other's case is total biasness. Wikipedia is not a personal blog. People will read year after year so as a responsible user we must produce both the case not one sided. Request admins to reconsider it. --Biman1989 (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Biman1989, They are not same cases. The speech of Kapil Mishra is all over the internet where he is seen threatening. Kapil Mishra is a notable person due to being MLA per wP:NPOL. Tahir is not notable as he is not MLA, so WP:BLPNAME applies. We have certain policies in dealing with the living people topic and it is strictly followed. He has to be formally convicted in a court of law for us to be able to write about him. Please click and read these links I gave. Also read this thread from the top to understand the issues, instead of jumping into conclusions. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SerTanmay, yes, as per Wikipedia policies on living persons, unless he gets convicted in a court of law, he cannot be mentioned. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

WSJ quote:

The body of Ankit Sharma was found Wednesday morning in a gutter in Jafrabad, one of the areas worst affected by the recent violence in northeast Delhi, according to police and family of the 26-year-old officer.

Mr. Sharma was returning home when a group of rioters started throwing stones and charged into the street near where his house is located, his brother said. "They came armed with stones, rods, knives and even swords; they shouted 'Jai Shri Ram' [Glory to Lord Ram]; some even wore helmets," said Ankur Sharma, in a telephone interview. "They started throwing stones and bricks at residents, who rushed to Ankit to help them….Later, his body was found in a ditch."

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Possibly fake news??. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple media house conducted interview with Ankit's brother and he never said his brother was killed by those chating "Jai Shree Ram". check this and this is the latest modified report from WSJ regarding the same issue. --Biman1989 (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

References

DBigXray Dey subrata Kautilya3 SerTanmay I'd rather believe India's leading publication over foreign MSM paper. Here's times of India debunking WSJ hit piece https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/times-fact-check/news/fact-check-ankit-sharmas-brother-denies-saying-his-brother-was-killed-by-those-chanting-jai-shri-ram/articleshow/74355310.cms The point is not about of the veracity of claims. You can definitely mention WSJ quotes in the article and give a complete picture to the readers. This thing is far too big to be hidden. Put something up detailing both sides of the story with WSJ and TOI versions. People deserve to read about this. Moderators are not expected to file a chargesheet here on the basis of media reports. It absolutely doesn't matter what you think of the accused. If that were the case then anyone can just remove Lt Col Purohit from the page of Samjhauta Bombings , any of the suspected zodiac killers mentioned on the wiki page, or basically any accused in any case. But posting something which tells both versions of the story without a bias is important. Ankit's is the only case where on single high-profile perpetrator has been accused and going by media reports that guy is absconding. All of you giving him a clean chit are only doing so because of political leanings and not because of evidence(because there just isn't enough evidence to acquit or convict him yet). Examining evidence is not the job of wikepedia but presenting facts are. This page already looks like a fluff piece already please do not make it incomplete by not adding Tahir or Ankit. If not mine at least put up SerTanmay's version. There is a story and that story needs to be written in a non-biased way. Oh and Dey subrata my arguments are not incompetent. I am not abusing, trolling or getting emotional about it either. All my statements are backed by a valid source and they most definitely are not arbitrary opinions about whether I think he is guilty or not from the beginning. This case if far too big to not have a presence on a platform like Wikipedia. As the investigation progresses we can update the page accordingly. And since you all are just throwing WP norms for the sake if it, here's a couple WP:DGF WP:AGFC. User:A14i12

It doesn't matter what you believe. you can read SerTanmay's reply where he agrees not to add it. See wP:SOAPBOX, please take your political rants to blogs and forums. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Few hours ago some people added Tahir Hussain/Ankit Sharma in main page and now removed. Why such inconsistency. --Biman1989 (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Correction : Pogrom

1. This is probably the only riots related page which has Goals in the infobox. How can there be one singular goal when the clashes were between two different communities. 2. Pogrom itself is basically a riot aimed at the massacre of one community. Since casualty lists include both hindus and muslims proving that not just one community was targeted, this word should be removed. A14i12 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Let me quote this SC lawyer Karuna Nandy "Let's be clear. This is a communal riot- mobs killing, looting & torching Muslims, & also Hindus. Only one side's supported by police & State. An MLA of the ruling party lead a rioting mob shouting kill slogans started by Minister. That's why it's also a pogrom.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

@DBigXray: If that lawyer's opinion is why you have added 'pogrom', then I'm afraid it'll have to go. There's not one reference in the entire article which supports these riots as pogrom, and obviously so becuase the normalcy has just began and police investigation has now started. For one opinion like this, there are many others who can say the opposite. But they're all opinion of individuals. Please remove it. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 11:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

LoL, I used her comment as a rational argument, as a response to the OPs opinion. Opinion as a response to an opinion. I never said that her comment is an RS. I find this amusing that you are jumping over this. The pogrom cannot be removed.

Here is BBC article referring to it as Pogrom [15]

Here is The Diplomat article

And here is New york Times [16] also TRT World--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

Moreover, please remove "Goals" from the infobox. There can't be a singular goal when two communities attack each other. A14i12 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A14i12, Now you are going around in circles, Read my first reply in this comment once again. and see the links I shared. Wikipedia uses what WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources are saying. Read Kapil Mishra's speech for the goal. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Have you read the context of usage of word 'pogrom' in all of the articles? trtworld article uses it for Gujarat riots of 2002, for Narendra Modi (2002), and a 'possibility' (future) in current riots. It uses unverified viral videos of social media and words like 'thugs' and 'goons'. The diplomat article uses word 'pogrom' as quoted by "Several other journalists", without giving any link to who are they. BBC article is an opinion piece and uses opinion of a professor who believes the riots are "begining to look" like a pogrom. All of these are merely opinion used out of context here. How are they justified? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No, FYI, TRT World says "The ongoing brutality in New Delhi dubbed 'communal violence' is the live unfolding of a pogrom against Muslims.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 13:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: That is just a stand-alone quote without any context. As if author just declared his opinion without substantiating it. You know it. If not for the design of the website, one would hardly be able to distinguish that article form an opindia article. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 13:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, It says so in the first line. LoL TRT world is a reliable Turkish news site. Take it to RSN if you want. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXRay: Firstly, at the top, the article itself states it's an opinion piece. Since it is an opinion, the statements of the author are required to be substantiated. So the first line which uses the word 'pogrom', simply calls the riots as a pogrom, and that's it. The author doesn't justify it further with any evidence as how it is a pogrom and why does he call it that way. Thus it cannot used as a source. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 14:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, The support by police has been documented and published by many many news sites, both domestic and foreign. The links have been shared where the event has been referred to as Pogrom. This is valid per WP:MAINSTREAM and the WP:BURDEN has been met. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

References

A14i12 (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Victim list

I am going to start the discussion by saying that for this particular article having a victim list does more harm than good. I am aware of victim inclusion on events such as Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, but also see articles like Kyoto Animation arson attack (at GA status). Right off the top we have an issue with the first thing that was added for the section: "34 people died in several incidents of violence. Below is a list of some of them:", why are there only "some" of the victims included? Are "some" more notable than others? When the death count becomes higher, it becomes more of a challenge to include all of the names without having the article turn into a Memorial. Its really up to editors here if having a victim list will improve the quality of the article or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I would note that I support this comment by Knowledgekid87. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I also support it, but we must first list the Aam Aadmi Party politicians who started the riots and cite references for the same!—Spasiba5 (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: Reverting without discussing things here is considered disruptive. I will copy and paste your above statement here though...

"Following from a section above about the casualty list - since this riots supposedly also have a lot to do with religious orientation, the religious demographics of those killed should be mentioned in the article and further as part of the CAA casualty list over on the main article for this CAA protests - "Names of 19 People Killed in Delhi Riots Confirmed (The Wire)", Delhi violence | Death toll rises to 27 (The Hindu)."

Citing the Citizenship Amendment Act protests article falls under WP:WAX as I have already pointed out that casualty list inclusion depends on the article. I do not see the justification of citing Religious demographics here for inclusion as in the end people are people. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I second Knowledgekid87, having a victim list will not make much sense, especially if the list grows larger. SerTanmay (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to break WP:3RR, if someone feels there is a consensus then remove the "casualty list". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 I think we should remove the list. It does more harm than good because the name reveal religious identities and further it needs to be updated. As one of the citations (from the Hindu, I reckon) themselves have more names. Perhaps we could include them.Trojanishere (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere.

I believe consensus has been achieved to Remove the section. Will add it back if we can prove that it adds significant value to the article, while covering every single casualty. SerTanmay (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not like Coronavirus; so, the victim list won't keep expanding indefinitely. I think the final tally will stand at 39.

For example https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/delhi-situation-improving-dont-believe-rumours-says-centre-10-points-2186970

To add to pages that have and don't have lists of casualties:

Columbine page doesn't have a list Columbine_High_School_massacre.

Nor does the page about the Las Vegas shooting 2017_Las_Vegas_shooting.

The Orlando nightclub shooting page has the list of victims Orlando_nightclub_shooting

I would prefer to have the list here as that adds encyclopedia value by clearly indicating that the victims were from one community. Of course, one can cite 10 or 20 'reputed' news organizations from both India and abroad who will say the same thing.

For example, USCIRF has said what it has said and GOI has responded with what it has responded. So, we can put both on Wikipedia.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/comments-by-uscirf-others-delhi-caa-violence-attempt-politicise-issue-mea-1650462-2020-02-27

(BTW, this bit pertains more to the 'other' discussion thread about whether the article is 'neutral' or not. But kind of relevant to this discussion as well.) Sachi Mohanty 09:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC) Sachi bbsr (talk)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

Ankit Sharma's neighbors also alleged (while Speaking to the media), that stones and petrol bombs had been thrown from the roof of the five-story building owned by Mr. Hussain (AAP leader and Municipal Councilor "Tahir Hussain"). As proof of these allegations, videos have been shared that show a man believed to be Mr. Hussain, on the roof along with some other men involved in stone-pelting and other criminal activities. Incident Video 122.168.89.209 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: already being discussed in threads above on this page. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

The whole article is very Hindu-phobic and is not at all based on facts. It has been writen by apologists trying to change the reality and blame Hindus. Please see the news and have a look who actually were rioting and killing. Muslims went around terrorizing so many yet play the victim. such unverified articles tarnish wikipedia. 2601:86:100:7C70:5CB3:5B95:1177:2025 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The talk page is not a forum. Please be specific about what change you want.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:23, 27 February 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)

QEDK, it says "Editorial" below the headline. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: 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.--⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 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)

Quote by father of victim

"Kapil Mishra aag laagake ghar mein ghus gya, hum jaison ke bete mar rahe hain"
(Kapil Mishra started the violence and went back to his house, while our children are getting killed.)

-- father of Rahul Solanki, a young victim who died after being attacked during the riots.

References

I disagree with adding this quote as a quote box (no objection to mentioning it in the text though). As much as we sympathise with the victims, highlighting one particular quote is undue weight and the presentation in the quote box (without context) is bordering a BLP violation (in comparison, the mention in the text is OK because it specifies it as an allegation). If this quote was highlighted by a significant number of media, perhaps it would be OK to include it in the quote box. However, that is not the case here.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DreamLinker, agreed. SerTanmay (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DreamLinker, how is it a BLP violation ? ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@DBigXray: It's an allegation being given undue weight (when presented in the quote box). The quote box also removes the context. As tragic as the incident is, we don't selectively highlight quotes unless the quote itself has received proportionally significant coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No it does not make it a BLP violation, you can read it again. Mishra is a notable person as an ex MLA and ex minister. As for UNDUE, Do you realize that Kapil Mishra's name as an incitor of riots is being mentioned in not only SIGNIFICANT BUT EVERY newspaper all around the world that are reporting on Delhi riots ? His video was even played out in Hon. High Court, where the Judge blasted the police for not filing a hate speech case on him. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It is the specific quote which is undue, not the fact that family members of victims have blamed Mishra as an incitor. Why highlight this specific quote? Are quotes by family members of other victims not important? How do we select one?--DreamLinker (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

it is not undue. It is common to include quotes. This quote was used as a title of the article by a major newspaper obviously for some good reason. The reason I believe the newspaper chose this was it shows the tragedy of riots, when politicians escape unharmed while the common people suffer dearly. There can be no bigger loss for a father than loss of his young son. Hence I believe the newspaper used it as a quote and the same reason our article must also use this as a quote. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This sensationalist newspaper? [17], [18]? Jansatta is not a "major" newspaper. I don't see other reliable sources (particularly other major newspapers in India) using this quote. As tragic as it is, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We summarise information and don't highlight specific quotes, unless a major proportion of media has done it. That's the whole point of WP:UNDUE. If we use this quote, what's there to prevent adding quotes by parents of other victims? (like here [19]).--DreamLinker (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

DreamLinker For a quote it need not to be covered by various media, a quote is made infront of a single media person and other media may not be present there and other media maynot quote from NDTV video directly but included in own words. Secondly, its clearly mentioned in the para that a lot of victims family have blamed him and for that its makes more interesting for an article to include such quote. Finally, here are again two more article The Scroll, The Diplomat defining the quote. And there is absolutely no undue weight in mentioning a quote on the person who is reposible in inciting the violence. As mentioned above both Supreme Court and High Court has taken cognizance of such imflammatory speech and sought action from police. Dey subrata (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Both the articles you linked do not use the quote. Instead they summarise the information, which is what Wikipedia should do as well. Sure some family members have blamed Mishra, but we don't selectively put an allegation word for word and place it prominently as quote (unless the quote itself is notable). As for its clearly mentioned in the para that a lot of victims family have blamed him and for that its makes more interesting for an article to include such quote, we don't do this kind of sensationalism on Wikipedia. If we do this, why don't we add quotes by parents of another victim who might have alleged someone else as the culprit? Are some victims more important that others after all? Summarising and presenting information is OK, selectively taking an allegation and putting it up prominently is not. As for the court, it asked the police to register and FIR, it did not pass any judgement about the person responsible.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing this quote is VERY IMPORTANT here as it demonstrates that the New Delhi media's claim of this being a "Hindu-Muslim" riot is wrong. The person quoted falls into New Delhi's category of "Hindu", but is clearly a lower-caste Non-Brahmin. This quote shows that Non-Brahmins, OBCs, SC/STs (including Dalits), and non-Hindi communities are opposed to the hate-mongering of the Hindi Parivar. Kapil Mishra, who incited the violence, is a member of the Brahmin caste and is reportedly Brahmin Supremacist as well. This issue has to be mentioned. This quote demonstrates Non-Brahmin opposition to Kapil Mishra's racism and Brahmin Supremacism. I agree it should be kept as is to underscore this fact. WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, WashingtonPrime has also added some very good points in addition to what was already said above to keep the quote. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

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

The Quote by the Father of Rahul Solanki ,is highlighted in the Quote Box. However the same by the father of Ankit Sharma is missing. Kindy add the portrait of Tahir Hussain and the Quote too. Why is a different treatment being meted out here ? Lets remain Neutral to the true values of Wikipedia. WP:DISPUTE https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/article/tahir-hussain-behind-ankit-sharmas-death-body-thrown-from-mosque-into-drain-father-alleges-in-fir/558746 Malabarspices (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

The names of incitors of violence as recognized by supreme court of India as of now are waris pathan,Amanatulla Khan,Sonia Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi. And not the mentioned people except pravesh verma I urge you to make appropriate changes. 103.218.237.116 (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Does Not included BJP state sponsored terrorism again the muslims as like in kashmir . and the writer seems to be an indian

Does Not included BJP state sponsored terrorism again the muslims as like in kashmir . and the writer seems to be an indian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.87.105 (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The article as it is has a very prominent pro-New Delhi bias and many sections appear written by Unionists or even members of the Hindi Parivar. This bias should be redressed. I support the inclusion of a section on New Delhi's long-term racist oppression of Non-Hindi peoples and discriminatory taxation of Non-Hindi member-states, in order to provide a proper 'big picture' perspective. The Delhi riots are merely part of large-scale hatred and violence against non-Hindi peoples. For example, the demolition of the Vidyasagar statue in West Bengal during the recent anti-Bengali riots a few months ago orchestrated by Hindi Nationalists should also be mentioned. A proper title could be "New Delhi's State Sponsored Terrorism against Non-Hindi Peoples". WashingtonPrime (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done WashingtonPrime, and the IP user, did it occur to you that this article is about North East Delhi Riots ? Why then should we add those things here ? please propose those additions on the BJP page or on Kashmir page. We have a topic for the article and we will stay on the topic. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

New names have been added to the victim's citations

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

Trojanishere, have removed the section as per consensus achieved. SerTanmay (talk) 05:23, 28 February 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)

WashingtonPrime, what additional value does it add to the article? SerTanmay (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. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Human rights session

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

References

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

 Already done This is already added in the response section. I had added it. Please check. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 07:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Grave concern over Delhi riot

DBigXray Can it be added on reaction portion? S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

S. M. Nazmus Shakib, Already added at North_East_Delhi_riots#Reactions. You can expand it if needed. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 08:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

" Intelligence Bureau staffer named Ankit Sharma"

I would regard this kind of phrasing as WP:POV, because it suggests that Sharma was acting in an official capacity. He wasn't. He was simply a resident of the area, and he fell victim to the riot when he was coming home from work (according to reports). The "Intelligence Bureau" is entirely irrelevant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Kautilya3, ok. what is your proposed version of this line. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 09:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I would use WSJ as the source and report it exactly as they did. The Hindutva camp is obviously hugely embarrassed that their rioters killed an IB man. A huge campaign is on the way to hang WSJ [20], but as far as Wikipedia is concerned WSJ is a reliable source. We cannot omit it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Read the brother's face. Worth a thousand words. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Times of India is also reporting in contradiction to WSJ's report [21]. Do they also belong to "Hindutva camp"? —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 10:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarvatra, There are no doubts in any "experienced" Wikipedia editors mind that ToI tows the BJP and Hindutva line. anyway focus on the topic. I find myself in agreement with Kautilya3. Can someone mail me the WSJ article. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 10:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

WSJ came with a new report. You can check it here. It did not mention the "Jai Shree Ram" theory. May be they received incorrect news earlier but rectified as soon as they verified the actual news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biman1989 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts

Can it be helpful to the article?S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/questions-emerging-from-delhi-riots-call-for-fixing-accountability-1650848-2020-02-28

25th February

On Tuesday 25th February The mobs from both communities were shouting slogans — "Jai Shri Ram" and "Nara-e-tadbeer Allah hu Akbar" — hurled stones, petrol bombs at each other.

Flairvelocity (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please copy edit the draft. It is trying to say both community were using these 2 slogans. which is not the case.

References

⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 12:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Why my section was so quickly archived?

Continuing the section "this article violates neutral point of view"

To DBigXray

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

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

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

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

To Sachi bbsr

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

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

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

For "Preponderance of evidence or common sense"

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bais and prejudices are obvious in the article but I felt this needed to said here.2405:204:3323:9B54:C536:B0F2:63:FFAD (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Guess who are probing Delhi riots

• Guess who are probing Delhi riots, Both officers have been in the news recently