Talk:2020 Delhi riots

Template:IPA AE

Once again, WP:BLP applies here - and this is not a discussion page for the riots

If multiple reliable sources discuss someone's activities and you want them added to the article, bring them here and suggest your wording.

DO NOT use this page to discuss them (or in fact the riots) - this isn't a forum, this page exists only to discuss improvements to the article. Doug Weller talk 10:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly what we don't want. No sources, lot's of text filled with accusations and innuendo. We need 3rd party reliable sources for this page. Nothing short of that will do. El_C 17:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Every request to include reliable references about the other side of the story are getting denied by the editors. The page is clearly blaming hindus for the riot. It is blaming mr kapil mishra for the riot. But mr tahir Hussain's name cannot be found in the article. Because no indian court has convicted him yet. Has any indian court convicted the hindus? Has any indian court convicted mr kapil mishra? No discussion is possible here because the output is clear. The editors will not include any valid reference about mr Hussain's involvement. They will not included any reference which shows that not only hindus, the muslims were also involved in the riots. There seems to be no violation of wp:blp when including Mr kapil mishra's name more than 30 times in the article. This article is an absolute violation of wp:npov. So no discussion is possible here. The editors are pushing their pov. So what else can be done? Where to raise complaints agains this religiously biased article? Quanta127 (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, we cannot call people terrorists and murders on this page unless they've been convicted

I'm removing them from the record when I can as WP:BLP violations. If I catch someone doing it twice I'll block them at least from this talk page and the article. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Should have have some banner at the top or something (not that I think it will matter, as this is all about POV pushing.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing somewhat incoherent comment. Same as above. WP:FALSEBALANCE; little grasp of the WP:BLP policy; no reliable 3rd party sources; accusations and innuendo. El_C 17:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not getting violated when the entire article indicates that Mr Kapil mishra is the main culprit behind the riots? Numerous references are included which indicate that mr mishra is the mastermind of the riot. Does WP:BLP apply to people of a particular religion. If not then where is Mr. Tahir Hussain's name? Including Mr Hussain's name is violation of WP:BLP but including Mr Kapil mishra's name is allowed? This is clearly POV pushing by the editors. If the editors are including Mr kapil mishra's name then include Mr tahir Hussain's name also. If if the editors do not want to include Mr. Hussain's name then remove Mr. mishra's name. There is WP:BLP violation by the editors of the page. So please do the necessary. Quanta127 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I asked for a edit citing multiple reliable references to identify Shahrukh Pathan described in the page as "as a man, allegedly from the anti-CAA side." FOr some reasons, some moderators are adamant to not include his name for reasons best known to them and after i provided adequate evidences and references, now are filibustering with a consensus argument which is laughable, as this page is violation of wp:consensus wwhere in the opinion of select moderators is drowning out the requests of a lot of edit requestors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.58.66 (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@223.186.58.66: please don't piggy-back on six-month-old comment threads. If you have an issue with a recent edit and there is not a current discussion already on this page, please start a new discussion. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on police reports and a note that Wikipedia is not a place to carry on real world conflicts

The policy that we enforce most strictly is our policy on recently deceased and living persons. WP:BLP. Part of that policy, WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

This policy applies not just to the article but to this talk page. Just to strengthen it, I'm putting the article (and talk page) under our BLP discretionary sanctions.

I hope this explains to all the new editors why Administrators such as myself have been taking the actions that we have taken and will continue to take. If anyone continues to break our policy either here or the article after warnings, they can expect to be blocked from editing at all, or banned from any pages in the sanction area. Too many editors are treating the article and talk page in a WP:BATTLEGROUND matter. Wikipedia is not here to WP:right great wrongs. Probably something like this belongs at the top of the page, although too many new editors probably don't read anything there. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the "Inter-faith solidarity" section

Since this article has been charged multiple times with having a bias against Hindus, in order to be a little more positive and a little less grim, I propose to expand the Inter-faith solidarity section. The content I wish to add is already present here in the archive. When I previously proposed the changes it was turned down by SerChevalerie. Even at that time, I was waiting for a second opinion but none came. @Doug Weller: and @Slatersteven: please share your thoughts. If turned down again by a veteran, I will not bring it up again. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not think we should make article changes just to avoiding offending sensisiblties.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to expand that section, for encyclopedic reasons. I doubt that its expansion would have any effect on anyone being offended, as that would happen in the lead, and a reader who is offended by that would have his mind already made up for anything further on. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Ritwik.m07, sorry but I'm staying uninvolved with article content. You might want to post at WP:NPOV. SerChevalerie hasn't edited for two months. --Doug Weller talk 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

No third-party international sources speak to interfaith solidarity, except perhaps in passing at the very end of an article. Therefore by the rules of sourcing followed in this article, any expansion will be WP:UNDUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven Anachronist My intention is not to avoid offending some people. Because that cannot be avoided since the article clearly blames one religion for the riots. I had a discussion on this on the same archive page. Basically where this article should have written "politically motivated violent mobs attacked first", it writes "Hindus attacked first". Anyway that is a different topic. My intention behind expanding this section is to make it act like a small beacon of hope. A beacon that proves that there are well-documented cases of humanity thriving in the midst of chaos. Why? Because I believe Wikipedia also has a social responsibility as well; schoolchildren refer it. I followed all the guidelines of Wikipedia to collect the data. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler why third-party international sources hasn't written about "Inter-faith solidarity" incidents, that I don't know. But saying that "it is a minority point of view", implies that "majority of Indian population doesn't have such a view" which is a very tall claim to make. And regarding the sources, out of given 12, the current wiki page already cites 11 of them (assuming reliable). The one which is not cited is The Free Press Journal, which is mentioned as reliable by you in here. --Ritwik.m07 (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

"Hindu mobs attacking Muslims to Muslim mobs attacking Hindus and burning down temples(Specifically Durga temple)" Factcheckworld (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It looks pretty clear to me that the requester wants the phrase "specifically Durga temple" added. If this is something significant, I don't see why not. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't read that. It looks to me like they want to flip the POV of the sentence from "Hindus attacking Muslims" to "Muslims attacking Hindus", and we're not going to do that without consensus. This is why edit requests are supposed to be specifically (irony not intended) formatted in a "change X to Y" format, such that we don't have to interpret or guess what's being requested. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree, but I think it is pretty clear they wanted to change "Hindu mobs attacking Muslims" to "Muslim mobs attacking Hindus and burning down temples(Specifically Durga temple)". So yes switch it about based upon one incident. Nor do we in fact just say "Hindu mobs attacking Muslims", so what their change would actually be "caused chiefly by Hin Muslim mobs attacking Hindus and burning down temples(Specifically Durga temple)" Which not only makes no sense (as the temple was not the main focus of events) but also because it's not what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)