Talk:2020 Delhi riots: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Delhi riots article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Template:IPA AE

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. project's importance scale .

Discrimination C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Firefighting C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Hinduism C‑class Low‑importance
C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Delhi / History / Politics C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance). This article was last assessed in February 2020.

Islam C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Law Enforcement C‑class Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	Religion: Interfaith C‑class Low‑importance
C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Sociology C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2020 Delhi riots was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 February 2020.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Role of Tahir Hussain

• AAP leader Tahir Hussain leading the riots from his house ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkb76in (talk • contribs) 18:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.(Redacted) 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)[reply]

Not sure about Waris Pathan, but councilor Tahir Hussain's role has been reported by different news websites. Adding sources for further discussion. [9],[10],[11] cc @DBigXRay:. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 05:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 06:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

"Family's claim is based on a video"? Not in the source[12] —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 06:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Much more than "alleged by family". Sources [13],[14]. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 07:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

talk) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

wP:CONSENSUS ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Links:- Times Now, Deccan Herald, 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)[reply]

wP:TE. you may soon find yourself blocked if you continue this type of behavior. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Proposal (Ankit Sharma/Tahir Hussain)

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.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:BLPCRIME. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^[1]. This surely worth a mention in this article. - The9Man | (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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: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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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

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)

Wikipedia has strict policies on

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Dey subrata, Just as expected the family member of Ankit sharma changed their statement. [15] They told WSJ that Hindu mobs killed Sharma, now they are saying something else. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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: ^{[3][4] [5]}(Just imagine a Samjhauta Express article without naming Lt Col Purohit. Isn't that absurd??)

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

 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.

• 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. [16] They told WSJ that Hindu mobs killed Sharma, now they are saying something else. " ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

talk) 22:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

DBigXray, noted. SerTanmay (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Kapil Mishra and Tahir Hussain are being treated unequally. please see 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP rules. The key difference I see between the two individuals and how they are being biased on wikipedia is their religion and their political affiliations. This is wrong and should be corrected immediately. Peace3050 (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

See the sections below on "Tahir Hussain responses" and "Tahir Hussain again". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fake News Rajat Rauth (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So when we are adding the proposed text? Mohanabhil (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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."^[6]

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

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

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)[reply

]

Its an opinion not an information and that is also highly biased and factually incorrect in between like Assam NRC was led by Supreme court.As a responsible writers we must consider only those opinions which even if critical must adhere to neutrality otherwise we will be alleged of same which PM modi is facing that is biased perspective.No difference between two,its just on the other side. Puneet.Garg.123 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Hussain responses

talk) 19:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Dey subrata, please do summarize what you saw in those links. or else people will continue arguing endlessly. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• In the interview, Tahir Hussain states that the video in which he was seen on the roof top was from 24 February, when he was attempting to drive off the protesters/rioters from his roof top. (It is not entirely clear if it is "his" roof top. There seem to be lots of flats and shops in the building, his being one of them.) On the advice of the police he left his flat on that day to go and stay elsewhere, after handing over his building/flat to the police. So when the other events happened on the 25th, the building was under the charge of the police (formally speaking, we know that the police wasn't in the charge of anything). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Though already been said several times, still for a final time, reiterating as per all above articles and rationale, 1. The video of his roof terrace is of him, he himself accepted as nothing wrong in it. His interview to NDTV. Rather, he can be seen removing people from his terrace. 2. All building are captured by mob and he with other can be seen trying to extinguish fire. 3. He has made several PCR calls and when didn't receive any assistance he had to made a video on 24 February and the . Video appeal to Delhi Police its authenticy verified by Altnew.in. 4. Evidently when police came, as a parsad, his safety was police responsibilty, may be asked to leave home though police have to clarify why asked to leave, which he did. Basically if someone is rioting why would he call police to see any kind of evidence. 5. Question, anybody seen or ahve any evidence of bringing those so called acid bomb by him and their authenticy? Answer:No 6. and case registered and FIRs are not enough to add, will be violation of
  talk) 20:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tahir Hussain surrenders in court. Please add this information to relevant parts of the article.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/delhi-riot-tahir-hussain-surrender-ib-staffer-death-sad-1652702-2020-03-05
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/aap-leader-tahir-hussain-accused-in-delhi-violence-appears-in-court-to-surrender-2190386 Aswin8 (talk) 09:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times

The Hindustan Times, a paper that I generally respect, says:

He lived in Chand Bagh in Northeast Delhi and had gone out to see that was happening in the locality in Tuesday - the worst day of violence - and never returned. His family members searched for Sharma frantically for eight hours and finally got to know next morning that his body has been found.^[1]

This is quite at variance with what the WSJ was told on 26 February. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

: You stick to that WSJ and NYT only as long as they suit your propaganda. --Biman1989 (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC) (blocked for sockpuppetry)[reply]

Sorry, you are not reading. They searched him for eight hours, when they did not find him. But somehow magically they dreamt in the night that he had been dragged into somebody's house and killed. Miracles! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are highly insensitive,

If someone is missing, would not the family search her/him for hours?

"Ankit got worried about his brother and told me that he was going to look for him. I told him to not step out and that I was making tea, but he left without saying anything,”

"They refused to write our complaint and asked us to go to the hospitals,”

"After Ankit’s family returned home at around 1:30 am, they again carried out a search operation in the area with the help of their neighbours."

It is then that some residents told them that Ankit was dragged into Hussain’s office and that the AAP councilor was responsible for his death.

“We were told that Tahir and his men dragged my brother and two others to his office and killed him. The people also told us that they saw the men throwing the bodies in the drain,” claimed Sonam, Ankit’s sister. please see

https://theprint.in/india/ib-officer-ankit-sharmas-death-case-of-targeted-killing-aaps-tahir-hussain-named-in-fir/372346/ 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several bodies has been found in the nahar near tahir Hussain's house.Even some girl's burnt cloths has been found in his house along with several bottles of Molotov (petrol bombs) ,and big slings shots. But on your page nothing has been mentioned Wikipedia. This page is showing false and one-sided facts about delhi riots-2020. Erashuner (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Hussain is the real culprit of delhi North east riots

Hirtesh chawla (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME

As per

• Alleged shooter Shahrukh
• Tahir Hussain
• Activists Sabu Ansari, Khalid Saifi and former City Councillor Ishrat Jahan
• radio jockey Sayema Rahman

If there is sufficient justification and proof to keep these names in the article, I am willing to revert my changes. Have still not followed Wikipedia is not a newspaper to the book as I have preserved the incidents but simply removed the names, since the incidents seem to have achieved consensus to keep. SerTanmay (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shahrukh" seems to be a random person. So
  WP:BLPCRIME
  applies.
• Tahir Hussain is a city councillor. So a public person.
• The activists and Ishrat Jahan also seem to have had leadership roles in the protests (and Jahan former city councillor). So they are vaguely public persons.
• I don't know about Sayema Rahman. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, city councillors are hardly notable. MLAs, yes, but councillors, no. SerTanmay (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy carefully. It doesn't mention the word "notable". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerTanmay, Kautilya3, Then the name of Kapil Mishra and even BJP should be removed! Why should only muslim names be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spasiba5, kindly revert this edit of yours unitl we achieve consensus on the same. Shahrukh is not notable by any standards. Regarding your query on Kapil mishra, it has been made clear dozens of times on this talk page that kapil Mishra is in fact notable and his speech triggered the riots. SerTanmay (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerTanmay, Kapil Mishra is neither a councillor nor MLA and he joined the BJP just recently!—Spasiba5 (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spasiba5, have you even read his Wikipedia article? He was previously an MLA. SerTanmay (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerTanmay, I did read it before posting here. He was an AAP MLA. Congress leader Ishrat Jahan arrested for allegedly inciting violence during Delhi riots. Waris Pathan incited Muslims to turn violent by saying that 15 crore Muslims are more than a match for 100 crore Hindus. Former Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Umar Khalid is also culpable.^[1][2]

Others:- (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These unreliable sources contain

BLP violations — do not add these again, Spasiba5. El_C 22:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:BLPCRIME, which states that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." One might argue that these people only appeared in the news after these accusations / allegations. SerTanmay (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:RS. SerTanmay (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

SerTanmay, When searching online with the words, "incite" or "instigate" only Ishrat Jahan's name comes up, not Kapil Mishra's!—Spasiba5 (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Web results- Delhi violence outcome of \'instigation\' by opposition leaders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spasiba5 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Google. SerTanmay (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

SerTanmay, Kautilya3, Then the name of Kapil Mishra and even BJP should be removed! Why should only muslim names be removed?—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerTanmay, I am not asking to add names, I'm only asking to remove Kapil Mishra's name!—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

..... and if the BJP is mentioned as his present party, it should also say that he formerly belonged to the AAP.—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME to him (since he is important to the narrative). However, the others are not YET important to the narrative, considering how they were almost nobody before the riots - they become important to the narrative only when convicted of the allegations, or if significant proof is found against them (in the court, not by the media). SerTanmay (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

SerTanmay, even Kapil Mishra has not been convicted which is why I am asking that his name should also be removed!—Spasiba5 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reinstating comment that was accidentally removed due to edit conflict. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spasiba5, I have already addressed this. His involvement is important to the narrative. Please don't take this discussion in circles. SerTanmay (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerTanmay The removal is clearly one sided. I agree with Spasiba5. We had previously discussed this issue and arrived at consensus that everything must go according the court proceedings and not allegations. If we go by allegations, then Tahir Hussain is also being accused of Murder. But he doesn't appear in the article. Ishrat Jahan and others have been arrested on court orders. What more do you need? Regarding being notable person, I say this- Colonel Purohit was not a notable figure before Samjhauta blasts. As he was held responsible for the blasts he became 'a notable figure'. So the names you omitted have become 'notable' in this incident as they courts have ordered their arrest. Therefore the mentioning of Ishrat Jahan and co is important as court as deemed it fit enough to order their arrests. Kautilya3 we had discussed this earlier. Why this sudden change?Trojanishere (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

WP:NPOV.Conviction takes years in India. Should we wait until then or we should update the court proceedings time to time? You are saying that we should wait for conviction.Then why not wait for the conviction of Kapil Mishra, Anuraj Thakur and Pravesh Verma. How can you directly implicate them? While Tahir Hussain who has been recorded while coordinating attacks and Mohammad Shahrukh who has been videographed while doing the act directly, they are not mentioned in the article. If you are removing Tahir & Shahrukh (directly involved) then you sholud also remove Kapil and Thakur. Anyway the earlier version named Tahir & Shahrukh. Further regarding Israt Jahan it was mentioned that she was arrested not convicted. You should have waited for a consensus on the TalkPage before making the edit. I therefore invite DBigXray,Bharatiya29, Varun2048 to chip in. Trojanishere (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply

]

Trojanishere, I have made the edit citing my reasons, and I have reiterated them multiple times in this very thread. If you manage to convince me of my mistake instead of blindly accusing me then maybe will we will achieve a fruitful discussion. SerTanmay (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trojanishere SerTanmay , I believe, both the names of Kapil Mishra and Tahir should be involved in the article. But I do not believe Shahrukh should be in the article, as of now,as he is not central to the overall plot of Delhi Riots. He is a person who is accused of threatening the police with a gun. Until he gets convicted by a sessions court, it is not worthy to mention him. However, this is not same with Tahir Hussain. He is central to the plot. He is accused of many things, such as being involved in the killing of IB officer Ankit Sharma and other Hindu people. His supporters defend him, saying he was surrounded by a murderous mob. Whatever the truth is, the thing is Tahir Hussain is central to the incidents that took place during that day and it is unfair to ignore him. I propose adding his name, what he is accused of and how his supporters defend his actions. Varun2048 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Varun2048[reply]

Varu2048 That's what I am trying to say. SerTanmay Not including Tahir but including Pravesh Verma just because he said something provocative is unfair. Waris Pathan had also said very provocative things in a rally. Should we include him too? Both Pathan & Anurag Thakur made their comments before commencement of the violence. Why leave one and imply the other? We cannot go on doing that just because of something that they uttered at a political rally. I cannot manage to convince you SerTanmay if you are hell-bent to not listen to my arguments. I think the implication of Tahir and Ishrat Jahan's arrest form the core of the article. Again you did not clarify whether we should wait for several years before the courts convict them. Trojanishere (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

Varun2048, Trojanishere, have restored Tahir Hussain's name for the alleged murder of the IB employee Ankit Sharma. SerTanmay (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerTanmay He has been arrested by Delhi police in relation to Ankit Sharma's murder. Please add that. You have just stated than an FIR has been registered. And what about mentioning his alleged role in burning of homes and throwing petrol bombs. Further, I think Ishrat Jahan should also be added. Can you explain me why you are not adding Ishrat's name.Trojanishere (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

Noting that per

WP:NPOL does not mention councillors and Councillors are not notable as it is not a major post. SerTanmay (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Exclusion of the names of Tahir Hussain, Ishrat Jahan and others from the article.

Every mention of AAP Councillors Tahir Hussain and Ishrat Jahan has been edited out. This is despite the fact that they have been arrested by the police and ample video proof available against them. In Ishrat's case, the High Court has even ordered her arrest. Yet this has been removed.

The Chief Justice of India has specifically asked for the transcript of a speech made by Harsh Mander at an anti-CAA rally. Yet no mention of this.

I agree that name of Kapil Mishra should be used but if we include the name of Anurag Thakur then why not include the name of Waris Pathan who had also made very provocative comments at an anti-CAA gathering. Further in her tweets, RJ Sayma Ahmad urged the people to mobilise against pro-CAA protestors. The High Court has asked Delhi Police to file an FIR against her. This [art was also edited out.

Bharatiya29, Varu2048 please opine. Trojanishere (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

consensus. Thank you. SerTanmay (talk) 13:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Protest: I lodge my protest here. Why should only Muslim names be removed from the article? Remove the names of Anurag Thakur, Kapil Mishra, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma also.2Priti (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction says, "......most of whom were Muslim.[10][11] Muslims were described as having been targeted by the rioters.[12] The properties destroyed were disproportionately Muslim-owned and included four mosques, which were set ablaze by rioters.[13] The Indian government has characterised the violence to be spontaneous. Many Muslims have since begun to leave these neighbourhoods." That is wrong. Hindus were also targeted.2Priti (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FIRs have been lodged against Ishrat Jahan for incitement and weapons were found in the house of Tahir Hussain.2Priti (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please start citing

reliable sources for your claims, 2Priti, or further such comment will be summarily removed. This is not a discussion forum. El_C 18:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NOTFORUM come into picture here. You are right about the need of reliable sources to support the claims, but I think what Trojanishere and 2Priti are trying to highlight here is the constant efforts by certain editors to prevent the neutralization of this article, a concern I share with them. Bharatiya29 19:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Without attributing concerns to

tendentious editing on this talk page. No more. El_C 19:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

That is correct. Simply questioning neutrality without offering reliable sources is no better than a forum comment. This must stop. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey El_C and Anachronist, I am addiing few references here and you please explain me if the court feels Ishrat Jahan's arrest in the connection of instigating violence after seeing the proofs then doesn't it merit even a mention in the wikipedia page.

1. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/feb/28/delhi-riots-court-rejects-bail-plea-of-arrested-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-ishrat-jahan-2109944.amp

2. https://www.indiatvnews.com/amp/news/india/ishrat-jahan-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-arrested-for-inciting-violence-during-delhi-riots-593664

3. https://www.headlinestoday.in/top-news/ishrat-jahan-ex-congress-municipal-councillor-arrested-for-inciting-violence-during-delhi-riots-158581378.html

4. https://www.republicworld.com/amp/india-news/law-and-order/congress-leader-ishrat-jahan-arrested-for-for-inciting-violence-during.html

We have court's ruling in this matter still you guys don't want to mention her. I am only implying her alleded role like the alleged role of Anuraj Thakur etc.We need to mention that she has been arrested. Thats all. I think she definitly merits a mention. Trojanishere (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

I never made any comment regarding this individual. Please don't attribute to me what I am otherwise uninvolved with. El_C 20:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Trojanishere: I do think that those names should be included. Can you write a proposed paragraph for the lead now? That will make easier for others to identify the text in question. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Role_of_Tahir_Hussain. SerTanmay (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

You have my approval too to add this text on main article. I don't see a problem here. When you are adding it? Mohanabhil (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mohanabhil, Bharatiya29 I propose the following short and precise text be added and previous refences be used as citations:

"Ishrat Jahan, a Congress party's councillor has been arrested by Delhi Police on the orders of a sessions court. She has been accused of murder, rioting, giving provocative speeches during communal tensions and inciting a mob for an attack." Trojanishere (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

Involvement of any politician, especially those who are occuipying a government post like MLA or councillor, is surely notable enough to be described in the article. If one has reliable sources to support his/her edits, like you do, I fail to see how someone could have any problem with that. Such unnecessary bottlenecks are exactly the reason behind the mess that this article and its talk page have become. Bharatiya29 14:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME to understand why this is problematic. SerTanmay (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NPOL, which states that MLAs are notable. It does not mention councillors, who are not notable as it is not a major post. SerTanmay (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Bharatiya29 won't be responding as they have been blocked by the

WP:Outing that has been taking place, but I suggest that anyone unfamiliar with how we deal with outing read that page as we take it very seriously and block editors who out other editors. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Varun2048, Trojanishere, Mohanabhil, Sanwat, Tayi Arajakate, Sarvatra and others, I believe that if Tahir Hussain, Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma can be mentioned in this article, so can the former councillor Ishrat Jahan. Please respond. Can we use her name in this article? Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishrat Jahan has been arrested and sent to judicial custody for making a speech and encouraging mob violence. This is a serious offense and very much the topic of the Article. Her arrest has been mentioned in the media too(IndiaToday, Republic and NewIndianExpress). Being a member of a political party, this means she is as important as Kapil Mishra. I find no reason why Ishrat Jahan should not be mentioned.Varun2048 (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful, everyone. El_C 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can this fact be included in a new section or mentioned somewhere in the article. Zikrullah (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is noted in in the article whenever one edits, in Template:Editnotices/Page/2020 Delhi riots, as well as at the top of this talk page in Template:IPA AE. El_C 18:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title change from "North East Delhi riots" to "2020 New Delhi Riots" or "2019-20 New Delhi Region Riots" or "CAA protest Delhi Violence"

Here are the reasons for title change:-

1) Several locations of Wikipedia referring to "NE Delhi riots" are titled "2020 Delhi Violence". For example

2) Riots are not confined to NE district. Riots are happening throughout delhi since 12/2019.

3) Popular media titles are "Delhi riots" or "Delhi violence". Only wikipedia has "NE Delhi" title. (1) (2) (3)

4) Wikipedia has always used "YYYY City-Name Riot" format. See the list [[17]]

5) There no article covering Delhi riots incidents outside NE district. A new article would become a super set of current article.

In Summary, "YYYY City-Name Riot" is accurate, popular and follows wikipedia norm. Unbiasedpov (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please familiarize yourself with
  Talk:JNU_attack#Year_in_title --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:38, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Previous thread on the topic from archive at
  Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_1#Title
• The proposal of Delhi Riots is not acceptable since 1. This is only happening in NE delhi, 2. there are many many riots over the years in Delhi. We will need to add year in that case. Currently, the media and news are using NE Delhi riots/ NE Delhi clashes/ NE Delhi violence. so we can drop the year. --⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article

• Don't know about this - the talk page discussions are long and unclear, but the title is surely wrong - we should follow the usual style with
  2020 New Delhi riots, or certainly not this. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Johnbod, the incidents did not happen in New Delhi. New delhi is in the center of Delhi state, while the incidents happen in 12 police stations in NE Delhi. So your title is misleading and incorrect. Media sources are using North East Delhi violence/riots/clashes. hence this title was used. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  How about

  2020 North East Delhi riots? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Fowler&fowler, it was not spread over Delhi. Only one lok sabha constituency . (12 Police station out of around 400) So the dab North East, is useful and also used widely by Media. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 17:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No doubt locally, yes. But the riots have got huge international attention, without being referred to with the North East. I take your point about "New", but 2020 Delhi riots cannot be said to be ambiguous or unclear. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  North East Delhi riots is unique. I will start redirects to cover these titles though as they are valid search terms. The title Delhi riot implies that it was spread over entire state of delhi, which is not the case here. Hence my objection. The redirects do cover it ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I can't be bothered to deal with the fine points of title policy, but surely, when India's capital region is as big as it is, and has a population larger than that of most countries, a more specific title is not a bad thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:25, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All local media etc. the HIndu, the Indianexpress and the NDTV call it delhi violence not "riot" please see https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/delhi-violence-day-6-live-updates/article30939906.ece https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-northeast-violence-maujpur-babarpur-jaffrabad-mustafabad-6293445/ https://www.ndtv.com/topic/delhi-violence 2405:204:3318:B8D4:7065:6C8D:AD1B:E694 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 March 2020

I'll leave it to Fowler&fowler to explain why "only hard news by third party international sources" are acceptable. He's been pushing that POV consistently at this Talk page without ever, in my opinion, adequately justifying it. Having said that, however, I must add that your phrase "widely described" is problematic for two reasons. First, the reader might construe it to mean widely reported news, rather than widely expressed opinion. Second, widely does not befit your four supportive references. Journalist Fahad Shah resides in New Delhi and in Kashmir. Political editor Hartosh Singh Bal works for The Caravan, also based in New Delhi. Politician Asaduddin Owaisi likewise resides in New Delhi. Three out of four sources from New Delhi do not represent widespread opinion. Only Parisian Mira Kamdar, born in the United States to a Gujarati father and a Danish-American mother, can be considered at least geographically distant from New Delhi. You've cited a narrow—not wide—sample of opinion. NedFausa (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A pogrom in the meaning applicable here is an organized, officially tolerated, attack on a community. That is already stated in the lead: the Muslims were targeted, the police stood passively by. The word pogrom, with other meanings, is not needed here. It is imprecise. I will add something more about the police joining in. Thanks for the post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari: The claim is highly contentious and will require agreement from many sources. All you did was cite a non-neutral opinion article from Atlantic, and cite statement of a communal politician called Owaisi for misrepresenting the subject as "widely described as pogrom". See

Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots/Archive_5#This_is_not_a_pogrom where this sort of wishy washy was rejected. Azuredivay (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think there may be a case (if we do not) if a brief mention of this being described as a program, with of course a response.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked at the totality of the source material, but Owaisi's views do not really belong. He's a politician; all notable Indian politicians are likely to have said something about these riots, and I see no reason to give him extra weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pogrom not a riot

What happened in Delhi 2020 was not a riot, but an organized anti-muslim pogrom. So the headline should be edited.

https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/delhi-riots-pogrom-violence-deaths-modi-bjp-india-police-a9384891.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3C_Z6yMcJBeGzwNNk9RINqR8s8FPXN0jN6Shgo8aM6G49nFZM55lZve2E#Echobox=1583656142

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/delhi-violence-clashes-maujpur-babarpur-shiv-vihar-chand-bagh-6304430/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad z06 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, there are many RS calling it a pogrom but more widely it's being called a riot. I did find a few new sources I don't see in the article, however:

  ^[1]Why India’s Muslims Are in Grave Danger I do not know if we consider ForeignPolicy.com to be an RS but I don't see any glaring issues that would lead me to believe they can't be trusted. This is also a piece from someone who is an expert on communal riots and I would generally consider to be at least in the realm of being an SME, Ashutosh Varshney.

  TIME

  . Discusses violence against Muslims, Modi's role, specifically Modi, the most powerful Hindu nationalist Prime Minister in Indian history

I will defer to others before adding these but I think at the very least, the TIME piece has a lot of value and there is absolutely no question about their editorial integrity. Praxidicae (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are "many RS" but only a few. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea to put "pogram" into the article. Of the 53 killed, there are 14 Hindus and 2 Hindu police officers. That is 2:1 Muslim:Hindu mortality. The Hindus died at the hands of the Muslims. What sort of a pogram was that? We are describing what happened without using loaded words uttered by commentators with opinions. That is why only hard news articles written by third-party international sources with reporters based in Delhi, not an op-ed column, not an editor of Time sitting in New York. It is as simple as that. Adam Withnall, writing from the Independent in Delhi says only that some political scientists have called it a pogram. He does not characterize it as a pogram. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified I wasn't suggesting it should be changed or even mentioned but that there are two very good sources that should be otherwise incorporated in the article. Forget the pogrom wording. I think it's also an absurd statement to say that a source such as TIME cannot be used because of the location of some of their journalists. You clearly didn't read the article given the byline: BY SAMEER YASIR/DELHI AND BILLY PERRIGO/LONDON MARCH 3, 2020 Praxidicae (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I don't intend to get involved in this tinderbox of an article but I will state that reliable sources are classifying it as a pogrom. Pogroms also don't necessarily mean casualties have to be solely one sided (e.g:1958 anti-Tamil pogrom) and there is also no confirmation that all Hindu casualties have been caused by Muslims (e.g: TIME reported that Ankit Sharma was killed by a Hindu nationalist mob; though that is disputed). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delhi riots: Violence that killed 53 in Indian capital ‘was anti-Muslim pogrom’, says top expert by the Independent
• Why India’s Muslims Are in Grave Danger by the Foreign Policy
• Delhi pogrom is an attempt to divert attention from government’s failures by Dr. Suraj Yengde on the Indian Express

--KartikeyaS (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a huge discussion about it, see this. Your blatant misrepresentation is only going to put you in a bad light. "some of the hallmarks of pogrom" is incomplete. Last one is an unreliable source. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343 If you think there has been no discussion here about the word pogrom you simply have not bothered to read this page. NedFausa (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed it but thank you for merging it. KartikeyaS (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed here. I think it is sourced and should be included. Is there any source that dispute that it is a pogrom? --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain removed because cherry-picking mainly opinion pieces or shoddy sources is not enough for pushing a controversial label which would require consensus by all sources. Note that millions of reliable sources have written about this incident by now, to say we should cherry pick several sources is asking for too much. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There maybe hundreds of thousands of sources written about this incident but how many sources are there written about the motives against the incident? The sources I mentioned above are from experts, not journalists. KartikeyaS (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion at

WP:OR policy. Dilbaggg (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

consensus

has been achieved.

Additionally, you keep accusing me of

WP:RS for the same. SerTanmay (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

SerTanmay Well there were some rumors of violence on March 1 evening after which the police told via social media not to pay attention to rumors. Since then the situation has been cooled down. I have added the information on my final edit with source. Since tensions were reported up to the date March 1, I feel information up to that day should be included. Also it was on March 1 that the police announced "there was absolute peace in their areas" which finally signaled the official ending of the riots. No such declaration before that statement. Source: [24] Dilbaggg (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I remember deliberately overlooking this as they were simply "rumours", and no actual cases of violence. Some points for us editors to ponder upon:

1. Mere "rumours" were reported on 1 March, following which the police formally announced that the riots had ended. Does that mean the riots officially ended on 29 Feb or 1 Mar?

2. If we do preserve the section on "1 March", is the information about the bodies found on the date relevant to the discussion? More bodies were found later, too (and some might argue that there are bodies yet to be found).

3. Same as above, is the information about the peace march in Jaffrabad relevant to the "Timeline" of the riots? While removing the section, I had moved this bit of info to the section "Local opposition to the riots", where all other such cases have been added.

Inviting other editors to opine so that we achieve a consensus. SerTanmay (talk) 05:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, well I will accept the decision of majority editors. Thank you for considering the matter SerTanmay. Cheers. Dilbaggg (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep this simple, provide a quote where a source says the riots are in fact over.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently moving the text here and reverting the changes. We can add it back after consensus has been achieved regarding the above points (Infobox still reflects end date as 1 March):

SerTanmay (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have expanded the section on the page since then. Looks like the end date is confirmed to be 1 March, as per this source, in which one more case of a shop being burned in "Welcome area" is mentioned. SerTanmay (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems extremely biased. This post made reference of Kapil Mishra for his statement but forget to mention the hate speeches of Amanatullah Khan, Manish sisodiya, Sonia Gandhi, Leftist like Swara Bhaskar, Kunal Kamra etc who instigated the violence. Also, this article failed to keep a neutral view while writing. Please don't use Wikipedia for your agenda. I will edit this article if it is allowed. I know anyone can edit Wikipedia. But I have seen much of the edits of other writers are revised only to costume their agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyam Seth (talk • contribs) 06:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for your allegations against "Leftist" politicians? Also do involve in the discussions in previous topics regarding whether or not this article is biased. Aswin8 (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aswin, Thanks for the reply. I have replied with the authenticated sources. please have a look on mentioned examples and if required I can provide more.

Sonia Gandhi gave a call for "aar par ki ladai", she said. 'now we have to decide, choose your side'. “It is duty of all of us to come out of our houses and do andolan,” Sonia Gandhi had said in a speech. She had called the anti-CAA protests “aar-paar ki ladai”. the Congress party leaders themselves indulged in spreading fear painting the situation as their “last chance”.

Now let's see whose hands are stronger -- ours or those killers. - Mani Shankar

police is killing unarmed Muslims, worst fears had already come true, and a time had come when uniformed personnel were indiscriminately killing unarmed Muslims and looting their properties, abusing them, just because they eat non-vegetarian food. - Swara Bhaskar

CAA-NRC was brought so that Muslim men could be stopped from procreating and increasing their population - Sushant Singh

(Video link is available at youtube)

"this fight will not be won in Supreme Court. Because we have already seen Supreme Court judgement in matters of NRC, Ayodhya.. In all these issues the Supreme Court did not protect the ideals of humanity, equality and secularism” - Harsh Mandar

“After CAA, Muslims will not be allowed to sport a beard or skullcap” - Amanatullah khan see the video

“Fifteen crore Muslims will overpower 100 crore Hindus” - Waris Pathan---- Divyam Seth (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not really an RS for "authenticated" facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slatersteven for reply . Apart from video posted on twitter there are many reliable sources which I have provided to prove my points.Divyam Seth (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your second link appears to be to an article published before the riots even started. I also note that many of your sources say this is the BJP saying this, not that it is a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Most of the links of the articles I have provided are hate speeches before riots. these are the hate speeches which fuels the riots and that's my point here. Your 2nd point ' many of your sources say this is the BJP saying this' , nope, none of the point has been said by BJP in my above links. Divyam Seth (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it impossible to correct the narrative especially when someone has a full-time job and other commitments. You suggesting some contents for your review as I have seen mostly one-sided stories so far on wiki pages

• Two things stand out in this move: first, OHCHR’s complete blindness to the rampant violation of human rights by India’s immediate neighbours, namely Pakistan and Bangladesh—violations because of which the minority population in these two countries have decreased drastically, unlike in India where various minority communities have been thriving, as obvious from their burgeoning numbers; and second, the abysmal ignorance of the UN body, for it comes across as uneducated in its inability to read and understand a law which is all about expediting the citizenship of minorities fleeing from persecution in the three Muslim majority countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and is not about taking away the citizenship of Indian Muslims. ^[1]
• Another video of hate monger Harsh Mander surfaces clearly saying issue can only be resolved on streets ^[2]
• Umar Khalid speech on 17th Feb in Amravati. Listen to this from 14:00-14:40 min. He is appealing to people to come out on streets in huge number when Trump arrives in India on 24th. What happened in Delhi was planned a week in advance? ^[3]
• A Muslim woman candidly admit, in front of DelhiPolice, her husband force her to go and sit at #AntiCAA dharna/protests site ^[4]
• Mahmud Pracha, Legal advisor of Shaheen Bagh and lawyer of Bhim Army Chief asking “Muslims to sell their property and jewellery and buy GUNS, for self-defence” ^[5]
• Wife of DCP Amit Sharma, who was critically injured in the anti-CAA Islamist mob attack says that women invited DCP for talks, surrounded him and initiated attack on him and were soon joined by men armed with hockey sticks, iron rods, knives and pistols. ^[6]. Here is the video of this incident - clearly how Mob word is used to hide the identify the real culprits ^[7]
• Delhi violence: Head Constable explains how he controlled Shahrukh, man who pointed gun at him ^[8]
• AAP leader Tahir Hussain leading the riots from his house ^[9]
• Outdated but still good for reading different PoV - https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/muslim-persecution-of-hindus-in-india-the-story-you-wont-see-in-the-western-mainstream-media

Rkb76in (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources. El_C 17:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

El_C, Those tweets have Videos embedded in it, just not comments from random people. And others are from news outlets. Rkb76in (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Videos are not

reliable sources either. Please use newspaper sources only, and avoid opinion columns unless they are from recognizable scholars. In any case, your comments should go at the article talk page, not here. I am not involved with the page at this time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Kautilya3, El_C, Based on your feedback, I have updated the references. Thanks!! Rkb76in (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a wall of dubious (sometimes) source can you please actually suggest what kind of edit you want made to address this perceived bias?Slatersteven (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven This long page is protected and already written in very very biased mode. I just dont want to copy the whole page and suggest edits. It might be easy if I can edit in small paragraphs and mods can agree or disagree with it. Rkb76in (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could post those paragraphs here for discussion?Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I let someone win and let it a pass. Thanks and all the best!! Rkb76in (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a timely discussion at Reliable sources/Noticeboard involving The Times of India, which accounts for eight references (one cited twice) at North East Delhi riots. Editors who have relied on The Times of India here may find those comments informative. It could be that we are taking too much for granted about that publication. NedFausa (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

We should strive to replace all citations, especially if they are in the lead (I haven't checked rigorously). If not possible, then case by case etc. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Working independently, SerTanmay and I have replaced or removed all citations to The Times of India. NedFausa (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of North East Delhi Riots.

I have many pictures regarding North East Delhi Riots. Those who can edit the article

• 
  Delhi Riots 2020
• 
  North East Delhi Riots
• 
  North East Delhi Riots 2020
• 
  North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1)
• 
  Delhi Riots 2020 (1)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is how can we verify these are what they claim to be?Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, @Banswalhemant: Wow. That's great you took these pictures. Very sad, but very informative. Do you have any pictures that have GPS information? Also, are these Muslim houses, Hindu houses, Muslim street, Hindu street? All those things will need to be known for balancing the content of the images. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN § Can we use photos of the Delhi riots a resident has uploaded? NedFausa (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Is the parking garage pictured in the first and last images the same as the "hell" described here or here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anyone can use these pictures.

You can verify these all pictures either by looking at the coordinates or by news. And you can also do reverse search of these pictures this is also very helpful in verification. Thanks for appreciating my work. Hemant Banswal 08:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs)

Edit request for placing a multiple image template in the article

I hope no one has any problems with this. Anything else that needs to be done with this?

One of the affected areas of NE Delhi in Gokal Puri/Dayalpur. Both images reflect the same area. The top image is a clear shot of the same location that is visible in the background of the bottom image, behind the police station, burnt shanties and huts. Note the proximity of the police station to the burnt buidlings.

There is also an invisble comment that reads =
For authenticity, both images have geo-locations to confirm the area that has been captured. The images were taken on 8 March 2020. The area visible is still being patrolled as visible in another uploaded image on commons.

@

talk) 07:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

As others have no objection use them, but for future reference it is the time, not location, that I considered unverified.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the discussion I'm happy with photos that are just captioned with location and date. Adding material to captions that isn't apparent in the image is the issue. We also shouldn't "note" in an article, ie editors shouldn't tell readers what they should note. Follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller, how do we verify that the damage shown in any photograph was caused by the riots? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: good question, without before and after photos I have no idea. I'm here only to say that we can use user-generated photos, but how we use and caption them is a major issue. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have pictures for the anti CAA protest still going on in the affected area of NE Delhi (Jaffrabad)

Does anyone have pictures for the anti CAA protest still going on on the main road in the affected areas of NE Delhi (Jaffrabad)? I was surprised to cross the protest that is still going on in the affected area. Is there any media coverage

Authentication

I don't pretend to be a professional photoanalyst, but to my untrained eye, comparison of the images above with reliably sourced near matches confirms their authenticity. On 25 February 2020, the Indian magazine Outlook published a slide gallery as part of its story "Delhi Riots Live Updates: Delhi Police Forms 2 SITs To Probe Violence Cases."

• The Outlook photo captioned "Security personal [sic] outside a burnt property following clashes over the new citizenship law, in Shiv Vihar" verifies the image above named "North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1)."
• Another Outlook photo, captioned "Charred remains of vehicles set ablaze by rioters during communal violence over the amended citizenship law, at Shivpuri area north east Delhi" verifies the image above named "Delhi Riots 2020."

In my opinion, the images submitted by Banswalhemant offer better framing and richer colors, making them superior to those published by Outlook.

Be that as it may, now that these photos are authenticated, it remains for them to be inserted into the article space. The only stumbling block would appear to be the discussion at

• Delhi Riots 2020.jpg at Citizenship Amendment Act protests and Riot
• North East Delhi Riots 2020 (1).jpg at Citizenship Amendment Act protests
• Delhi Riots 2020 (1).jpg at Junk

Naturally I'll await the noticeboard outcome before adding any of these photos to North East Delhi riots. But we ought to be able to use at least the two that I've verified. NedFausa (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

original research." But looking at the two photographs you highlight, the uploaded photos and the photos in the Outlook magazine are–as far as I can tell–showing the same places. So, with Outlook telling us what those photographs show, it seems to me that we can use the photographs and provide a caption that is cited to the Outlook article. I've never come across this situation before, though. It's like we can't use Outlook's copyright images, so we went and made PD duplicates? I guess that works? Curious to see what others think. And thanks for finding this, Ned! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The article didn't have a lead image, so I

WP:DUE or not. I have no strong feeling on the subject but I didn't want to make that call unilaterally. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 02:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

North East Delhi riots § 24 February, which recounts "A massive parking lot with 170 cars was burned by a mob," virtually screams to be illustrated with either Delhi Riots 2020.jpg or Delhi Riots 2020 (1).jpg. The starkness and loneliness of those pictures (despite the presence in the first of a single, dazed-looking individual off to one side) are haunting. NedFausa (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Honestly, I had no idea what this article is about. I am so unaware about what is going on in India. I thought this article is about the anti-CAA protests but it seems to be about the pro-CAA protests. Thanks for those pictures.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not the same as this one [[26]] and in fact even some of the scorch marks look different. You cannot use a source that does not in fact contain the image, it violates

Slatersteven, why does it violate SYNTH? Synth says not to come to a novel conclusion. What is the novel conclusion? The source says that those buildings were burned in the riot. The wikipedia article does not claim that the picture we use is used in the source; just that both the source pictures and the picture we have depict the same place. I don't see how that's SYNTH? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does, its why it being used as a cite, that is what cites are for "this is where there comes from", its not. Thus its sysnthy to say this source supports this image (as they are not the same, and even seem to have different levels of damage). Its synthy because it says "this image must be true, its almost like this one from an RS".Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The images are verified. There is no way you can dispute that. This article is said to be under some sort of restrictions. Can any admin look into this? Doug Weller, anyone?. I think this is disruptive now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This is where this comes from" – in this case, the "this" is the caption, not the image. The fact that these buildings were burned in the riot ... that comes from the source. Not the picture. And we don't usually source pictures using cites in captions anyway. Instead, the source of the picture is documented on the image info page. So I don't think the reader will be confused and think the picture came from the source. In any case, the fact that the picture depicts buildings burned in the riots is not a "novel conclusion" – it's explicitly stated by the source that those buildings were burned in the rioting. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that is why we do not usually cite pictures, because it is confusing. We do not need the cite, so it should be removed unless it links to the picture.Slatersteven (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you guys settle this and other image questions. I am done with this page. I had come here because I was requested to do so. I think the sources are no longer being updated, so I consider the lead to be more or less in a good place, showing the consensus of third-party international reporting (I.e. of major third-party international hard-news print newspapers of my previous formulation with correspondents in Delhi). I will check the page from time to time, but I have other fires to put out. Any major changes in the lead will of course come to my attention immediately. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved in content issues and that's what this is. Take the issue to the RSN thread. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should not have been removed & I support the replacement. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, it wasn't removed. The editor added "failed verification" tag.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I misread it. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We assume good faith that a commons image uploader that has proven they live in a region to be able to take such pictures, that when they say a photo is of what they say it is, we are not going to doubt them or assume it is synthesis, particularly in a case like this. Trying to question legitimacy is an exercise in futility. --Masem (t) 19:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to dispute this picture, we might as well dispute all the pictures on the India page: of Ajanta, of the Taj Mahal, of the Tiger, of the Golden Temple, of the Sari, or the Railway Mutton Curry, for no source published by an indisputably reliable publisher will say that that picture taken from the same camera angle, in the same light conditions is Ajanta, the Taj Mahal, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the picture. I find the quibbling about the citation to be unreasonable. Fowler&fowler, thanks a million for working on the lead and the delicate balancing of the myriad aspects. I am sorry that I couldn't participate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all for appreciating, supporting and recognizing my work. (Banswalhemant|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Current picture in the infobox is probably best we have got for now. Thanks Banswalhemant. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome sir Mohanabhil. Banswalhemant|talk Hemant Banswal 20:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative solution

Instead of including a citation in the caption of each photo, I have substituted a footnote providing a disclaimer as to origin of that photo. Hopefully this will clarify that we are making no claim that the photo is the same as the published source in our reference, which is offered only in the footnote and solely for context. NedFausa (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt needed. The image is of the same buildings. Thats it! that should have been enough. Anyways, can we add the sourced caption "Muslim homes and businesses burned during the North East Delhi riots"?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to cite the caption? If the photo we do not need a cite.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also should not be using sources as a cite that cite us (

wp:circular).Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Slatersteven I remedied your concern about circular sourcing by rewriting the footnote, which now reads: Photo by Banswalhemant is original. The following reference to a published source that includes the same photo is offered solely for context. We make no claim that Eurasia Review is the source of our photo. NedFausa (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit of a vague area

WP:CITE implies we only cite to verify the content.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Slatersteven, the references in question are included within footnotes in accordance with Help:Footnotes to provide explanatory information. Each footnote expressly disavows the cited webpage as the source of our image. I fail to understand why that does not alleviate your concerns. NedFausa (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because removing them would do it without reservation, and policy says we do not need them. Thus I fail to see why so much effort is being used to defend that is not needed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a noticeboard discussion on the Indian government's response to the content of this article. If you are interested, please participate at

I believe that people who want to know this number, also know how to check it from page info. Having it on talk page is not necessary, and in this case it is leading to harm, as people may get concerned. SerTanmay (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the section

WP:BOLDly, if anyone has any objections then please discuss here. SerTanmay (talk) 07:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Objection I disagree that people who want to know this number, also know how to check it from page info, or that they should be forced to do so. You allege that the annual readership template is leading to harm, but that is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. The template should be restored, with consensus. NedFausa (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The photographs currently used in the article have been edited (Snapseed 2.0). Considering this is such a highly sensitive topic, the editing is done according to me in such a way that the destructive colours are amplified. I don't think this is ok. Can the unedited pictures be used please.

pinging @

talk) 12:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

IN what have have they been edited?Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, if they have been enhanced or photoshopped, it would be better to have the originals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiplomatTesterMan: Sir, I have Uploaded the original picture, you can check it.[[27]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Like minds ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really tell the difference. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any difference either.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two pictures at the top of this thread look the same because they are the same. I’m not sure how to wikilink to archives pics on Commons, but this is the original, and this is the filtered version. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eww. What is that, some kind of crappy instagram filter or something? We shouldn't be using the retouched image based solely on the fact that it's a bad retouching. GMG^talk 17:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done We can compare the current with its previous version under File History here. If you still see the darkened image at 2020 Delhi riots, please Force Refresh your browser (Windows: Ctrl+F5). NedFausa (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Clockwise from upper left: (a) A mosque in Shiv Vihar with signs of smoke damage shown with congregation (b) A mosque without congregation in Shiv Vihar showing signs of smoke damage (c) Shops in Shiv Vihar gutted by fires

@Banswalhemant: Do we have your permission for showing these pictures and what do others think of them; obviously, only one of the mosque will go. I think the congregation add a human element, and the dog features animals, who must now be short of food. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Sir, You can use any picture which is clicked by me. For animals you may use this picture [28]. This is the picture of Gukal Puri at which there was a Tyre market which was burned in riot. And now the dogs are wandering here and there for food. In this picture there is a dog who is looking at the burned shops.Banswalhemant (talk)

Tomorrow I will visit in relief camps which are made for riot-affected victims. So hopefully, I will get some good Pictures from there.Banswalhemant (talk)

Great. Please read: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights, just so that you don't find your picture unusable on WP. Look forward @Banswalhemant:! Good luck and be safe. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: Just FYI, but India does not have privacy protections or consent requirements for photographs of identifiable people so long as they are in a public space. GMG^talk 13:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Banswalhemant, thank you for providing these amazing images. There also another edited image that is used in this article. It's File:Delhi Riots 2020.jpg. Please upload the original. Thanks.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, we should always upload and retain the unedited original even if we do decide to retouch it somehow for use in an article. That way if someone else wants to retouch it some other way for some other future use they can do so. GMG^talk 15:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Today I visited in the Relief camps. These Relief camps are made for Delhi riot-affected victims at Eidgah in Mustafabad, Delhi. The Eidgah camp was set up by the
  Central Wakf Council in association with the Government of Delhi
  . More than a thousand people accommodated here in which most of the people are those whose houses burned or demolished in riots and some peoples are their neighbors who were feeling unsafe in their homes. The Entry was restricted but somehow, I went into this place and talked to some people & volunteers. Also there is restriction for taking pictures of people in relief camps. There is a timing for media personals which is 11:30 am to 12:30 pm. I am just a volunteer in wikipedia so, I thought, I need to click some pictures from any building which should be very close to this place but nobody is giving permission to enter in their home because I am an outsider for them and those who involved in this riot was outsiders so, I clicked some pictures from the top of a nearby mosque "Masjid And Imam Bargah Imam-e-Asr". In these pictures you can see people, shelters, Children, temporary toilets & sanitation facilities and temporary kitchen. Hemant Banswal 16:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome SharabSalam. Hemant Banswal 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulous pictures, Banswalhemant. I don't believe in my 13 years on Wikipedia, I have seen such vital high-quality pictures, so relevant furthermore, for a developing vital story. Hats off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much sir Fowler&fowler. Hemant Banswal 18:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banswalhemant (talk • contribs) [reply]

"corpses continue to be found in sewer drains" - can we please put a timeframe for this. Thank you.

 Done Rewritten in past tense. NedFausa (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes more sense. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article as we can see is written by someone totally biased. Not only it excluded the name of Tahir Hussain who was chief suspect of the riots but also hidden the fact that this was actually a muslim terror attack and those who were attacked were actually hindus. Muslim mob burned public properties and pelted stones on police. There are innumerable video proofs for that. Void som (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

consensus as to what the article should say. We aren't going to solve any religious or legal disputes in India here, so we should just focus on article content. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Begin

An example of change: "three days time" should be replaced with "three days time after President Trump visit". (Kapil Mishra didn't want to create problems during Trump Visit and also the ultimatu was to the police not the protestor). Also a video has surfaced where Umar Khalid said that minorities should go to Delhi during Trump visit to protest and show the plight of minorities in India. Then Waris pathan also gave courage to people saying we are 15 but will be heavy on 100.

A bigger change is the timeline. Whole thing started because of blocking roads. "Blocking road" call was given by Sharjeel Imam. Shaheen bagh followed. Later on Shaheen Bagh disassociated with Sharjeel Imam ( can give India today link for this sentence if required). Then again metro areas were trying to be blocked. pro-caa opposed it. stone pelting happened. Riot followed when Trump was in India.

"The success of Shaheen Bagh inspired similar protests at other sites in Delhi. These too blocked major roads, and in one case affected the entrance to a metro station. That was sheer bad policy. It was likely to provoke retaliation at some point, either by the police or BJP goons". From http://swaminomics.org/the-right-and-wrong-lessons-of-shaheen-bagh/

"Sources have told India Today TV that Sharjeel Imam was among the people who were instrumental in organising the protests at Shaheen Bagh." https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/shaheen-bagh-sharjeel-imam-organiser-protest-assam-agitate-video-1640170-2020-01-25

• • End

ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News Nation a popular TV Channel from Delhi and its web site has reported how things turned out here https://www.newsstate.com/states/delhi-and-ncr/delhi-riots-chronology-shaheen-bagh-caa-protest-in-maujpur-zafarabad-delhi-police-nrc-npr-delhi-violence-131130.html but this article relies on Washington Post which does not even have a reporter on the ground and who has nosourceof telling how it reached to one sided conclusion that it was aimed at Muslims and not perpetrated by them when it happened in a Muslim Majority area and most victims properties belonged to Hindus. Nody 09:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indian-sb (talk • contribs)

Given the contentious nature of this event, there might be something to be said for using sources who can look at it more dispassionately than "on the ground" sources. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, and go slightly further and say only non Indian sources should be used.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Void som:, Joanna Slater heads up WaPos South Asia bureau based in Delhi. Please read below:

• Joanna Slater

• New Delhi, India
• Foreign correspondent covering South Asia

• Education: Smith College, BA ; Columbia University, MA in International Affairs and MS in Journalism

• Joanna Slater is the India bureau chief for The Washington Post. She is an an award-winning foreign correspondent whose career includes reporting assignments in the United States, Europe and Asia. Prior to joining The Post, she worked at Canada's Globe & Mail and the Wall Street Journal. She was based in Asia for seven years, first in Hong Kong and then Mumbai. In 2014-5, she was posted in Berlin, where she covered Europe’s refugee crisis. Slater began her career as a Luce Scholar at the Far Eastern Economic Review and was also a Knight-Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University.
• Honors & Awards:
• Journalist of the Year, Canadian National Newspaper Awards, 2015
• Winner, International coverage, Canadian National Newspaper Awards, 2015
• Young Journalist Award, Society of Publishers in Asia, 1998
• Foreign languages spoken: French, Hindi

Our compact is

WP:NPOV. Some of the best-known third-party international print newspapers The New York Times, The Washington Post, Guardian, Times, The Independent, Le Monde, Sydney Morning Herald have bureaus in Delhi, and news agencies such as Reuters and AP have the occasional signed article written by reporters some of whom are in Delhi. Jeffrey Gettleman, for example, is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. When there is such unanimous accounting of the events by journalists of vast experience writing for newspapers of credibility and reputation, our hands are tied. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I have restored[29] to the last revision by Kautilya3. Please ask the editors to reach a consensus here before editing the article. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit the lede edits were undiscussed (just like most of the times before too) but rest of the text had been discussed in the above sections such as here. Mohanabhil (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a lot of on and off wiki canvassing being going on (can email evidence if required) so I have no objection to edits by any editor in good standing. --KartikeyaS (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being discussed and being agreed to is not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If on wiki canvasing is occurring it needs to be reported at ANI as it is against the rules.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:KartikeyaS, please let me know why you reverted all my edits. I had cited the references by User:Trojanishere for it. Please also tell me which word in Hindi translates to "bastards" since you added it back after its removal.Souniel Yadav (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS as suggested by another editor on your talk page and try to reach a consensus before adding any contentious materials. KartikeyaS (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• NedFausa, I have added a citation for the disputed word and removed the inline tag. Please have a look[30]. Thanks. KartikeyaS (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I don't have much time to keep editing Wikipedia but I believe that if Tahir Hussain, Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma can be mentioned in this article, so can the former councillor Ishrat Jahan. You reverted my edit here where I had added her name according to what Trojanishere had proposed (which can be seen further above) and asked me to obtain a consensus. Please respond. Can we use her name in this article? Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the 3 sources I used for the sentence are reliable.Souniel Yadav (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did suggest it and others opposed it. As we already have a discussion about this we do not need another, so please make your case there.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to modify the following sentence: The Act has been seen as discriminatory to Muslims and threatening to their existence in India when combined with **anticipated lying by non-muslims about their origin** and the anticipated National Register of Citizens (NRC).[33][34][35][36][37]

Logic There are 100+crores of non-muslims in India. The combined population of Bangladesh+Pakistan is approx 40 crores and people who have migrated are even smaller. So even CAA+NRC cannot be discriminatory if all people are honest about their origin. Only if non-muslim choose to lie can it be discriminatory. If people don't choose to lie they will face the same consequence as muslims and it won't be discriminatory.ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And which of the cited sources support the text you want to add? ~Anachronist (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist "An honest NRC should exclude illegal migrants of all religions." from https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-caa-and-nrc-1630771-2019-12-23 None of the documented link talks about "how" NRC+CAA can impact the "muslims" only. CAA only gives citizenship. NRC is for "illegal immigrant". People have explained to me that if non-muslim lie they can get away because of CAA. An honest NRC will not allow that. So if you have any link which explains how "honest" non-muslims will not get excluded by proposed NRC will be glad to know. Or if you have any other explanation will be glad to learn and educate myself. Please note I am not saying people will lie or not lie, I am just saying non-muslims have to lie otherwise in honest process it doesn't threaten existence of any community or say of all community. Hope I am making sense. ShouldWeHaveTwoPointsOfViewInsteadOfConsensus

@Fowler&fowler: Pinging you since you seem to be the most involved editor on the article currently. I understand that you are almost directly quoting specific lines from the references, primarily being the Le Monde and NYT articles which are fairly in depth. I fear the resultant paragraph of the quotations are failing to demonstrate the political affiliation of the Hindu perpetrators and equating "Hindus" and "Hindu nationalists" as one and the same, a nuance which would be present if the articles themselves were to be summarized as a whole and not directly quoted from. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]