Template:IPA AE

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. Death C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath 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. Disaster management C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management 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 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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism 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.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism 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. 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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion 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. 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.

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. [1],[2],[3] 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. Dey subrata (talk) 06:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Family's claim is based on a video"? Not in the source[4] —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 06:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Much more than "alleged by family". Sources [5],[6]. —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. Dey subrata (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]

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

SerTanmay, any such proposed draft would first need to be discussed here per 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]

Spasiba5, No, there is no evidence for your claims and I must remind you about wP:TE. you may soon find yourself blocked if you continue this type of behavior. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[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:BLP, WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 16:27, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• DBigXray and SerTanmay my first question is why his death is more important than anyothers death?? We have not included other gruesome murders and deaths. Second, its been clear that he was asked by police to leave, but police's delay in revealing the developments is surprising, atleast they can clarify to media when and at what circumstances they asked his family to vacate. And I have gone through the sand box, there ae excessive, give it another revision it can be summarised more. And also search fr any fact-check articles on videos and photographs they are mentioning cause the claims are based on those photographs, if not wait fr such fact checking articles too. Dey subrata (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[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:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME come into picture, no matter what news channels are saying, unless he is convicted, we cannot discuss the unproven allegation as it has direct impact on this living person.
6. The only uncontroversial content than can be added is that "the dead body of Ankit Sharma, a Security Assistant in IB was found in Jafrabad" ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 18:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[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) DBigXray Now even if he is not a public figure is non notable, mentioning allegations against him is still not violating WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE since we are citing high-quality sources and are mentioning that everything is just an allegation as of now. If the post doesn't misrepresent an allegation or an opinion as a fact, Hussain should be mentioned to give proper context to readers.A14i12 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

DBigXray Thats just an arbitrary opinion. I actually read the entire page, especially WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPNAME. And mentioning Tahir's name in an article does not violate any of these policies. If I were to start a page on him then things might have been different. But just mentioning him in an article ,citing high quality secondary sources, is just fair game. The rational of mentioning or not mentioning an individual should not be a wiki page since that is not explicitly mention anywhere.A person who doesn't have his own wiki article can be surely considered a public figure.A14i12 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC) DBigXray case in point ^[2] the Samjhauta Express terror attack. All the accused are named despite there being no convictions and despite neither of them being notable persons. Tahir can tomorrow be acquitted and that can be added at a later stage but right now mentioning his name is of utmost importance.A14i12 (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[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]

SerTanmay, Dey subrata, Just as expected the family member of Ankit sharma changed their statement. [7] They told WSJ that Hindu mobs killed Sharma, now they are saying something else. ⋙–DBigXrayᗙ 20:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A14i12 Whoa...whoa, hold on, utmost importance..for whom? why? I'm not going to add a single line without evidence or acceptable rationale. DCP Alok was present, police asked to leave home, they have taken care of his home, so police to verify that, secondly, the video that gone viral, in the interview he accept its him, and defined the full chronology, and can be seen he is forcing people to leave terrace and people can be seen pouring water to stop fire, and from video its also been shown that not only his house but all houses near by captured by mob, so again, there is lot of weight on his side, seeing that the family did not produce any substantial argument based on evidence, its evident the family perhaps been misleaded by some one, finally, he was a IB officer, and his death is totally different from other, which itslef makes fishy. No absolutely nothing to be added in the article. I actually read the entire page, especially WP:BLPCRIME,WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPNAME, I am afraiD then you are one classic case of WP:COMPETENCE as lot of rationale produced for you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[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. Dey subrata (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

DBigXray This is a clear case of bias. If Tahir Hussain (Aam Aadmi Party) who was caught on camera leading the operation from his roof top, covered by all major news media, held responsible for the gruesome murders by family of Ankit Sharma and his neighbors, suspended on Thursday from the AAP party, booked by the Delhi Police for the murder -- cannot be discussed or mentioned on wikipedia unless he is convicted in a court of law due to WP:BLP concerns, why Kapil Mishra(BJP). When you hold one person Kapil Mishra responsible for the entire riots(his picture is on top page) as the prime instigator, devoting a complete section declaring him as the culprit without him being convicted in a court of law, does it not violate any wikipedia 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]

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

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

DBigXray After this interview evidences of PCR calls, Video appeal to Delhi Police, its authenticy by fact checking, shows its hardly now debatable, there is nothing left. You please archive it. Dey subrata (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 WP:BLP, fails notability, and there are 123 FIRs till now. Final, the most important thing, the officer's family later said was attacked by right wing nationalist. So, its clear now. There is abosultely no need of adding such thing in the article, the death of the officer though mentioned appropriately. Dey subrata (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources:

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]

Multiple violations of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME

As per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME, I have removed the names of the following:

• 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]

Kautilya3, agreed that the word "notable" is not mentioned. However, I would like you to refer to 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]

Spasiba5, let us first establish whether we must add or remove Tahir Hussain, Sabu Ansari, Khalid Saifi and Ishrat Jahan before moving on to other cases. Also, please support whatever you are trying to say with 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]

Spasiba5, again, I don't see how adding their names, while they still haven't been convicted, not violate WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. Also, please remember that 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]

Spasiba5, as explained to you before, Kapil Mishra was himself pretty well-known before this incident (being an MLA and all) and his speech clearly triggered the riots, which lets us not apply 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]

Trojanishere, kindly read WP:BLPCRIME and refer to the above discussion on how we must refrain unless "a conviction has been secured" - which it has not. i am not saying that we should not add them, I am only of the opinion that we wait for the facts to settle until it is more than just a court order but solid proof is made available of their involvement. SerTanmay (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerTanmay your edits are clearly partisian 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]

Trojanishere, have updated the info to reflect Hussain's arrest. I haven't added the rest because of violating WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. If you can provide sufficient WP:RS and explain how they are important to the narrative, please do. Do note that the arrests have been mentioned but not their names. SerTanmay (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that per WP:NPOL MLAs are notable. 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]

Trojanishere and others, kindly continue this discussion at the existing thread of Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME if you hope to achieve 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]

El_C People are raising questions on the neutrality of the article, and not discussing the topic in general. Hence in no way whatsoever does 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 reliable sources that is what it amounts to. This is not a venue for polemics, even when comments tentatively speak about neutrality or lack thereof, and so on. We've been far too tolerant of high volume of disruptive and 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]

  Mohanabhil, Trojanishere, there is already a neutral version of the same in my sandbox. I would, however, implore you and others to either move this discussion to Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME, while referring to the detailed discussion at Talk:2020_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]

Bharatiya29, Trojanishere, Mohanabhil and others, kindly refer to the discussion at Talk:2020_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]

Bharatiya29, please refer to 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:Arbitration Committee. This was done privately which means that it must have concerned actions/incidents that should not be made public. As a former member of the Committee I know that this is virtually always to do with off-wiki activity, and I hope most people know that there has been quite a bit of that related to this article. It may not have had anything to do with 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, DiplomatTesterMan 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]

Varun2048, Aswin8, Anupam, My reverted edit can be seen here - I had added her name according to what Trojanishere had proposed (which can be seen further above). The 1Revert rule applies here now, so I request you or anyone else to add that back citing the references I had. Thanks.Souniel Yadav (talk) 05:03, 15 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]

• The first line of this article says:

The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting,[13][14] that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.

• Compare this to the first line of 1984 anti-Sikh riots:

The 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also known as the 1984 Sikh Massacre, was a series of organised pogroms[8][9][10] against Sikhs in India in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards.

• Compare this to the first line of the The Holocaust:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah,[b] was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

• Compare this to the first line of the 1929 Palestine riots:

The 1929 Arab riots in Palestine, or the Buraq Uprising (Arabic: ثورة البراق‎, Thawrat al-Buraq), also known as the 1929 Massacres, (Hebrew: מאורעות תרפ"ט, Meora'ot Tarpat, lit. Events of 5689 Anno Mundi) refers to a series of demonstrations and riots in late August 1929 when a long-running dispute between Muslims and Jews over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem escalated into violence.

• I could go on. But the goriness of the first line itself of this article is just plain stupid, sensational and comparatively and historically disturbing. Why can't the first line at least leave out the gory details? Have it in the body.... oh wait no one reads that far right? DTM (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't about how other articles look like and it is not detailed. The stuff in the lead are heavily reported in sources. They are definitely due weight. If you need to remove that part you should start a RfC. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read wp:lede, its a summery of the article, not a leader.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does not look like you have read what WP:lede says, it says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. You have to read the guidelines before suggesting them.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the most important contents of the article what it is not is a "news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.". It should summerise the most important content of the article. I do not see how a list of injuries inflicted is an important part of the article. Shooting is mentioned in one line, slashed only in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the word "Hindu" just after an editor reverted a disruptive removal of it with a lame excuse disregarding BRD in a heavily sanctioned article. Also, no the current version of the lede is not news style. Those are definitely lead worthy information.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So how much space does it take up in the body?Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And other examples of where we do mention casualties East St. Louis riots, 1921 Jaffa riots, Rosewood massacre, Memorial Day massacre of 1937. So I am not sure it is quite that clear cut.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#New_lead_edits. I am certain sources are not represented correctly in this emotive lead. Wareon (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"emotive" that's a weird spelling of the word "informative". Sorry we don't want an ambiguous lead. Sources definitely support the lead.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead or the very first sentence should be neutral and must be familiar with the general description of the incident across reliable sources. That is not happening here though. Wareon (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lay of the snark.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the preceding discussion, I remain unclear as to what is being proposed. For clarity, I offer this revision of the lead's first sentence with the gory details removed. Please, is that what you have in mind?

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction and rioting that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

If so, let's focus on that revision and await consensus to replace it accordingly in the lead. I must tell you, however, that in my personal opinion it does not adequately summarize the events recounted in our article. NedFausa (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out in my first post, saying there was bloodshed or death is not the issue. Its the list of injuries that is unneeded.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In that case, the lead's first sentence should read:

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people, most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Is that what you are proposing? NedFausa (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, but bloodshed should be replaced with violence something like "violence and bloodshed".Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be precise. You say bloodshed should be replaced with violence something like "violence and bloodshed" but that is addition not replacement. So it should read:

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven violence and bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people, most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Correct? NedFausa (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain what violence you have in mind in addition to bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people? NedFausa (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violence may not lead to bleeding, and bleeding is not always caused by violence. Thus I fell for clarity we need to say there was violence, not just bloodshed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing a subtle difference between American English and British English, but I believe Wikipedia readers of an article titled 2020 Delhi riots will comprehend immediately that bloodshed carries the common meaning listed first in our dictionary: destruction of life, as in war or murder; slaughter. Moreover, property destruction and rioting in this context are implicitly violent. For those reasons, I cannot support your proposed change with the redundant addition of "violence". NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But not all the victims were killed, there were many many injured.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about this then?

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others most of whom were Muslims,who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February.
  

Better? NedFausa (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you must fine.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the sentence is now awkwardly worded. I submit the following as better written.

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of religiously driven bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others.
  

However, I think you'd have to get behind this wholeheartedly, not grudgingly, if we're going to build consensus. NedFausa (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: See Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#New_lead_edits. "by Hindu mobs" is not supported by the sources and those 3 words should be removed as well. Wareon (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we say the 2020 Delhi riots were religiously driven, it seems fitting to name the religion of those who rioted. NedFausa (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I can (and have in the past) said "if this gets us consensus fine" (its called compromise) So \I can say yes I agree to this if it ends this (and I do).Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: Still what matters is if the content is supported by the sources. It is not. Majority of sources don't think this was a religiously driven incident but extension of CAA-related conflicts. Wareon (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Manual of Style guideline is not very helpful in resolving our discussion of the lead's opening. It recommends: Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

In this instance, we might argue that calling the riots religiously driven by Hindu mobs overloads the first sentence, since that aspect is spread out over the entire lead. Indeed, in 7 paragraphs consisting of 700 words, Muslim or Muslims appears 23 times and Hindu or Hindus appears 16 times. (By contrast, Citizenship Amendment Act appears only once.)

By removing both "religiously driven" and "Hindu mobs", however, we're left with a first sentence that does not comport with the rest of the lead.

• The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February that killed 53 people and injured more than 200 others.

That sentence fails to introduce what the rest of the lead unambiguously emphasizes as the principal notability of this article: religious violence. As such, there's no chance we could attract consensus to substitute it. NedFausa (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It still looks better than the heavily emotive lead which we have now. I am sure it can be improved further. Wareon (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is the result of an evolution of perspective in the reliable sources (major international third-party (ie. not Indian, not South Asian, not Al Jazeera, not China news, not Russia news etc) that began in early March. We started with phrasing such as "incidents of ..." because many sources were reporting it to be so. The sources then began to describe it as waves of violence, largely perpetrated by Hindus against Muslim, and only occasionally by Muslims in self-defense or to head off apprehended/perceived violence. The violence was brutal: there is no mincing of words here in the sources: men were stripped, their penises examined for circumcision (a Muslim custom), beaten, throttled, stabbed, shot, and dumped in the gutter with not even the dignity of having their pants pulled back up. The description in the sources is graphic. I am happy to trot out the evolution of phrasing both in the sources and in this lead. There is no reason to change anything. And the Hindu Muslim interfaith prayer meeting in such abundance as to bear mentioning in the lead is ludicrous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @NedFausa: no need for religiously driven any more as we are mentioning Hindu mobs. Sorry, I should have taken it out earlier. The phrasing I would support now is: The 2020 Delhi riots were multiple waves of bloodshed, property destruction, and rioting that killed 53 people most of whom were Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs in North East Delhi beginning on the night of 23 February. The riots are also called North East Delhi riots. Among others killed were a policeman, an intelligence officer, and over a dozen Hindus, who were shot or assaulted. More than a week after the violence ended, hundreds of wounded were languishing in inadequately staffed medical facilities and corpses were being found in open drains. Many Muslims have remained missing." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiplomatTesterMan and Wareon – in accordance with the preceding concession, I removed "religiously driven" from the lead. NedFausa (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that but "by Hindu mobs" is still not supported by sources. Wareon (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, this editor Wareon is editwarring. Removing Hindu mobs while there is no consensus for that.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler's lead

I came here because I was requested by a number of people; my presence was welcomed by some administrators.

• Like many other South Asia related pages riven by ideological edit warring, I first fixed only the lead and it was sourced to the ideal of:

• (1) scholarly books printed by internationally known academic publishers, such as the university presses (Oxford, Cambridge, Columbia, Chicago, Harvard, ...),
• (2) journal articles in internationally known journals, especially review articles of literature,
• (3) Other tertiary sources such as Britannica, or well-worn textbooks used in undergraduate courses around the world, for WP: DUE and
• (4) major third-party international print newspapers with presence in South Asia.

• Other articles where I was approached to do the same are: 2019 Balakot airstrike, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf, History of India. Much earlier I did the same for Indus Valley Civilisation, Indian rebellion of 1857, and much earlier India, Partition of India, British Raj, Company rule in India, Pakistan, Kashmir (and all its sub-articles), History of Pakistan, Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, and lord knows many others I can't recall this minute. All these articles had a large number edits made by editors attempting to infuse what I have come to call South-Asia-POV (i.e. edits that in some way UNDUEly promote some aspect of related to South Asia in articles).
• WP:Lead fixation has been an old problem on Wikipedia, and this approach of fixing the lead and then fixing the rest of the article is the result of a wide consensus among experienced content editors and administrators who have worked on South Asia related pages, among them are: @RegentsPark:, @Abecedare:, @SpacemanSpiff:, @El C:, @Doug Weller:, @MilborneOne:. The approach goes back to Nichalp, now retired, the administrator and arbitrator who started the major drive for high-quality South Asia related articles on Wikipedia, included many FAs.
• In many instances, after fixing the lead, the rest of the article was fixed (an example is the FA India, which is now Wikipedia's oldest country FA), Company rule in India, British Raj (although its main body has degenerated somewhat); Presidencies and provinces of British India;
• in other instances, many parts of the main body were fixed (examples are Indus Valley Civilisation, History of India (which had gone off my watchlist and an IP (who is now banned) had restored many old edits), Partition of India, Mahatma Gandhi, Kashmir;
• in other instances some parts of the main body were fixed (examples are Subhas Chandra Bose, for which I had to write an entirely new article Death of Subhas Chandra Bose (as that was a big part of its controversial content), Indian rebellion of 1857 (on which Slatersteven has done splendid work in maintaining the article)
• and in some such as 2019 Balakot airstrike, Bhagat Singh, Shalwar kameez, Pilaf and 2020 Delhi riots only the lead was fixed (in the case of Shalwar kameez, and Pilaf a few subsections as well); the rest of the article had just too much to fix. I cannot stress this enough: in all these articles of the last-named category, the lead is not a summary of the article content; it has no connection. It can't: the article main body is in so much of a mess of little details that fixing it would require removal of the content and a rewrite which is more effort than available NPOV editing-power can manage.
• So when an edit is made, as was yesterday, in which outlandishly UNDUE content about Hindu-Muslim unity and interfaith prayer meetings was put in the lead on the basis of its presence in the article main body, major disservice was done, an insult to the truth and ultimately to the victims of violence. Please examine Hannah Ellis-X's Guardian article. It has a few throwaway sentences at the end about some Sikhs who saved some Muslims. Such stories, the exceptions that prove the rule are always available. But the Holocaust page does not have a peep on Rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust. Please be aware that I have experience both in creating NPOV content and removing POV content on Wikipedia's South Asia related pages. That doesn't mean I'm not required to play by the rules, but that I'm human; I have other commitments, even on Wikipedia. I cannot explain all of the background to all of the people all of the time. Please be aware also that edits I have mentioned above, or similar ones, have a long history of appearing in POV promotion on other Wikipedia pages which I have not forgotten, and which I will be trotting out if you take me to ANI. Wikipedia has to decide if the relentless promotion of POV is the bigger violation or occasional outbursts in the face of it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How this is any relevant to the problems related with this article? Don't misuse this talk page to distract from the ongoing issues. Wareon (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a separate subsection, which addresses issues of editing the lead which has longstanding consensus on WP South Asia related articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's no surprise that the editor who has monopolized the lead now decrees, There is no reason to change anything. To justify his domination, he replays a familiar refrain, previously orchestrated here, here, and here: I came here because I was requested to by a number of people; my presence was welcome by some administrators. He omits diffs to substantiate that self-serving claim, but so far as I can tell, the number of people who summoned him = two: Kautilya3, who is not an administrator, and Unbiasedpov, who is likewise not an administrator; his presence was welcomed by two administrators: El C with a no less and Vanamonde93 sans . But however he was enthroned, there is no denying his reign. MediaWiki's Who Wrote That? tool does not yield a word count, but visually suggests that this editor has single-handedly accounted for at least 75% of the lead.

If nothing else, he must be commended for his frankness today. Only the lead was fixed, he explains, because the rest of the article had just too much to fix. I cannot stress this enough: ... the lead is not a summary of the article content; it has no connection. It can't: the article main body is in so much of a mess of little details that fixing it would require removal of the content and a rewrite which is more effort than available NPOV editing-power can manage. This is a brazen acknowledgement that he intentionally violated our Manual of Style, which advises: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. But of course, since he has the blessing of admins, he can trumpet his flouting of Wikipedia's relevant guideline with impunity.

In the face of such unchecked arrogance, there is no hope for the rest of us to collaboratively edit the lead. NedFausa (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While the MOS does say that the lead should summarize the body, it is not unusual for the lead to be the prime focus of an article in the early stages. Over time, once traffic quiets down, the referenced material in the lead can be fleshed out in the body. I read the lead and, this is not meant as a comment on the content but rather on the writing, it seems all right to me.--regentspark (comment) 20:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not in its early stages. It is 25 days old and concerns riots that ended nearly three weeks ago. Traffic has been relatively quiet for the past nine days. And we are not discussing the writing style; we are debating the lead's contents. NedFausa (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are, then how did that the bit about Hindus and Muslims singing Kumbaya at interfaith prayer meetings (from lord knows when, three weeks ago?) creep back into the lead? Any clue what those neighborhoods are like? They are poor and traditional; the communities didn't mix socially to begin with; they never had; they didn't visit each other's houses, let alone join each other for dinner; the Muslims were careful to either send savviaN (sweet vermicelli noodles) after Ramzan, or if they were sure their Hindu friends were meat eaters, a cut of goat meat uncooked for Bakrid); the Hindus went to their temples, the Muslims to their mosque, but they never prayed together for heavens sakes (where would they have prayed and to whom?). There is collaboration between the communities; but that is at a higher level described in the caption of the second picture between the Government of Delhi, the Muslim Waqf board, and two hospitals run by old Christian organizations in India (St Stephens run by Anglicans and Holy Family by the Catholics. There is serious divide between the communities. Please read the signed article in Reuters, republished in the New York Times, on March 16. The Hindus do not want to hire Muslims; the Muslims are afraid for their lives. Read the articles in Deutche Welles, and watch the videos. Do you see any women with red dots on their forehead? To be precise, there are zero, i.e. 0.0000. The victims in the camps are all Muslim; they have nowhere to go to; if you understand Urdu, the old man is speaking of dehshat (دہشت, terror, panic) Who are the volunteers there? They are from St Joseph's Hospital in Ghaziabad. NedFausa, I have no idea what your issue is. You and I are not that far apart in our perspective on the news; but you are going after me for silly issues of process while serious violators of DUE are getting away with murder (elliptically and metaphorically speaking). Entirely perplexed. Please do some soul searching (and please don't come after me for saying that). The truth is more important than technical violations of WP MOS when such major life and death issues are involved. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding comment is clearly posted in the wrong section of this page. It belongs here or here. I recommend you move it to attract the attention of the editors involved. This section is about sensationalizing the FIRST LINE with gory details. NedFausa (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS The article is very much in its early states. The reporting on what happened is still crystalizing. The camps are facing management and public health problems in the face of coronavirus. The Delhi police is threatening to close them down. Their inhabitants are homeless or seriously traumatized—in one camp alone which has 1,500 occupants. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPS That discussion is closed; you have already made changes. This about the lead, to have for future reference, among other things. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the unchecked arrogance. You don't get to close our discussion, sir. This section is headed Since when did Wikipedia start sensationalising the FIRST LINE with gory details? It expressly concerns "Muslims who were shot, slashed with repeated blows or set on fire by Hindu mobs," which is still a prominent part of the lead's first sentence. NedFausa (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I will make a post upstairs, but have you considered informing others about Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practices:

• Check whether there's already a discussion on the same topic. Duplicate discussions (on a single page, or on multiple pages) are confusing and time-wasting, and may be interpreted as forum shopping.
• Avoid excessive emphasis: ALL CAPS and enlarged fonts may be considered shouting and are rarely appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases but should be used judiciously. Italics are often used for emphasis or clarity but should be avoided for long passages. Exclamation marks similarly should be used judiciously

In how many sections are we going to have this discussion? (I opened a subsection in keeping with Talk page guidelines.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have created a draft here on my sandbox. As pointed out, it has a few issues, but I am hoping that other editors can chip in and work on the cohesion.

Slatersteven, would like your inputs since you reverted my addition - I had covered a lot more than just the police's lack of action. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

true, but that addition made me doubt the rest as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, its consoled not condoled. There may be more grammatical errors.Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, as per source, Replying to debate on Delhi riots in Lok Sabha, Amit Shah condoled the lives lost during the violence. Will still double check for any other grammatical errors. Any other concerns? SerChevalerie (talk) 13:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an exact translation? Because if it is its very bad English.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why were the students arrested, for being at a railway station?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, have corrected the grammatical errors to the best of my abilities. However, do point out any other significant changes that you would like to be seen. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start this, remove the comments about police actions during the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, Done. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And remove anything else that discuses what people did, during the riots.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, kindly list out what all changes you would like to see, instead of listing them out one by one. Have currently kept that line because the article doesn't mention that information. If you insist that it doesn't belong in the "aftermath" section, kindly point out where in the article it can be placed. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you are free to edit in my sandbox. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you cannot cite Firstpost, Hindustan Times, whatever other Indian sources you have cited. In the lead, only third-party international sources are the standard with a few allowances for obvious factual details for The Hindu, Indian Express, Calcutta Telegraph, and Statesman. That should be the standard in the main body as well; otherwise, people will stuff all sorts of stuff into the various sections and then arrogate the right to add them to the lead. So, please remove Indian sources. In fact, I would suggest: hold off on creating the section. Let the lead first firm up. There are plenty international sources. Nearly a month later, we don't need a blow by blow account. I oppose the creation of this at this time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, there is no such policy that Indian sources, especially ones from major newspapers, cannot be used on Wikipedia. Given that the riots took place in India, most of the coverage of the riots will come from that country itself. WP:RSN is the place to determine whether individual sources are reliable or not. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second Anupam here. Besides, if the rest of the body (besides the lead) uses sources like Hindustan Times, why not this section? By that logic we have no almost no content in our article left except the lead. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have vast experience in working on controversial South-Asia-related pages. The only ones that have some kind of stability are the ones that follow the general guidelines of Fowler&fowler's Lead section above. You can Wikilawyer this to death, accuse me of WP:Arrogance, WP:Mania, WP: Monomania, WP:Megalomania, etc etc. but that is the truth. It is your choice. Are you guys opposing me because you can't stand my guts or opposing me because I'm wrong. For I've seen nothing on the latter yet. I've seen the kind of gloriously unreliable POV you have added in the Hindu-Muslim brotherhood sections. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, if that's your stand then a whole rewrite of the article is due. And please, we didn't add any info in the Hindu-Muslim brotherhood sections. In any case, moving this discussion ahead, if you find the POV of any of the content I'm proposing to add in the "Aftermath" section is not up to the mark, then please point that out. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Kautilya3 has stated that he will be doing it. He is highly experienced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Update Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, noted. Now, about the POV of my proposal as part of this discussion? I'm willing to make changes as requested. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph will need to go in its entirety. It is overly undue. The Ravi Shakar character is a charlatan who likes to make an appearance to publicize himself, not solve any problems. A few years ago he bent to existing environmental rules in Delh, had a large convention in a marsh, an important ecological niche, in the Jumna river. The marsh is still not recovered. I've already said this: These neighborhoods are poor. The Hindus and Muslims don't mix. They don't socialize, go to each others' houses for a meal. After Ramzan, a few Muslims send savvian (sweet vermicelli noodles) to some Hindu friends; on Bakrid if the Muslims are absolutely sure their Hindu friends are meat-eaters, they send a cut of meat (goat), always uncooked. Do you seriously think after being brutalized in such a horrendous fashion with 3/4 deaths Muslim, they would be going to an "interfaith" meeting?! It was probably some rescue opportunists from everywhere else but the neighborhoods. Also, we can't make summary style a list of events. I learned this from the two mainstays of the India page Nichalp and Saravask in 2007. You write a general sentence that gives a perspective on something (sourced to highly reliable sources), and then you may here and there add a vignette to illustrate the general principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS I apologize about the spelling errors. Somehow a spell checker is now a part of my editor and it is making idiotic changes such as marsh to march. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Also, if you look at videos of the Mustafabad camp. There are no Hindus there. It was organized by the Delhi government and Muslim Wakf board. All doctors and volunteers are from St Stephens Hospital (Anglican) and Holy Family hospital, and St Josephs Hosp Ghaziabad (both Catholic). There is 0.000 chance that people suffering from PTST would be trusting Hindus. The is the kind of interfaith collaboration (sans Hindus, for sure) that bears mentioning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS See here. See also the second infobox picture and its sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the highly inflammatory and political remarks by User:Fowler&fowler ("The Hindus and Muslims don't mix. They don't socialize, go to each others' houses for a meal.") are false. In normal day to day life in India, Hindus and Muslims live, work, and celebrate life with one another (see Exhibit A). Video footage from reliable sources proves that throughout the riots Hindus and Muslims demonstrated unity in many areas (see Exhibit B and Exhibit C). Wikipedia will absolutely not be used as a vehicle to promote communal viewpoints. Anupam^Talk 15:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we let others chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point to the disastrously unreliable POV that is being promoted here. Exhibit B above is about the neighborhood Noor e Ilahi. Maybe one lane in it was protected, but the neighborhood was very much vandalized. See here 1 and here 2, or here 3 I could easily produce three more. In any case that is not "Aftermath," only a lull in one lane. The aftermath is homeless Muslims, dead Muslims, traumatized (mostly Muslim) families; threats of corona virus in the camps. Missing Muslims for many more were killed. What sort of communalism are you accusing me of. Please have a Wikipedia-wide RfC and we'll see what sorts of sources line up on either side. Seriously. Let's do it and settle the matter once and for all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven: Please clarify. When you respond to Anupam by suggesting that we let others chime in, are you insinuating that Anupam should stop commenting? He has posted two substantive entries (not minor fixes) today—here and here. I find both of those observations incisive and on point. Whereas another editor, whom I shall not name out of a sense of decency, has commented four times as often during the same timeframe without your suggesting that he let others chime in. Do I detect a double standard? NedFausa (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also comment on content not users. If a user is acting up report them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, could you help me with sources for the same, specifically the bits on "The aftermath is homeless Muslims, dead Muslims, traumatized (mostly Muslim) families; threats of corona virus in the camps. Missing Muslims...". I am considering a rewrite of my proposed copy with your inputs. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SerChevalerie I will post the sources, all reliable ones, later today. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, thank you. Meanwhile, I have created a new draft in my sandbox, one that uses only "high-quality third party sources", as recommended by you. Slatersteven, pinging you since you were so kind as to correct the grammar for the old draft. SerChevalerie (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler and Slatersteven, did you manage to take a look at the new draft? It uses a chunk of the current lead (mildly rephrased). SerChevalerie (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the following wordings should be used in the "Investigation" section? — Newslinger talk 20:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 (from Special:Permalink/946814150#Investigation):

Some activists were charged with offences under the Indian Penal code and the Arms Act. Their friends and relatives alleged that they were tortured in custody.^[1][2][3]

Option 2 (adapted from Trojanishere's suggestion in a discussion above):

Ishrat Jahan, a councillor of the Congress party, has been arrested by the 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.^[1][2] Her friends and relatives alleged that she was tortured in custody.^[3]

Option 3 (first posted as a modification to option 2 by Souniel Yadav in [[9]]): −

Ishrat Jahan, a councillor of the Congress party and two others have been arrested by the Delhi Police on the orders of a sessions court. They have been accused of murder, rioting, giving provocative speeches during communal tensions, and inciting a mob for an attack.^[1][2] Their friends and relatives alleged that they were tortured in custody.^[3]

Survey (Investigation)

• Option 1 with the names of the activists included - As I have stated earlier, the activists who take leadership roles in the protests are not subject to privacy under WP:BLPNAME. Ishrat Jahan is also a former municipal councillor, which makes her a public figure. However, I do not believe that the details of the charges can be included at this stage, because it gives UNDUE weight to the police version of the narrative. The activists' version of the narrative is markedly different, as can be seen in the reference [3]. If a trial is held and more details become available, the issue can be revisited then. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 - As has been discussed before at Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME and the rest of the discussion, Ishrat was a councillor, and per WP:NPOL, which does not mention councillors, I would like to add that Councillors are not notable as it is not a major post. SerChevalerie (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither but lean towards option 1 Seems to be we either name all of the arrested activists or none.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3: lean towards option 3 - seems to be we either name all of the arrested people or none.Souniel Yadav (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: those are not public figures so WP:BLPCRIME and WP:SUSPECT apply..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 and speedy close: per Kautilya3, [[User:|SerChevalerie]] and SharabSalam Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: I suppose that this option is a more balanced take on this matter. Aswin8 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 is more suitable I believe. Idealigic (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Investigation)

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 if we should name her as one of the inciters. Right now, a reference is made to her without naming her, with this sentence, "Some activists were charged with offences under the Indian Penal code and the Arms Act. Their friends and relatives alleged that they were tortured in custody"[176][177][178] in the, "Investigation" section. I want it to be changed (as Trojanishere proposes in the section at the top of this page) to, Ishrat Jahan, a councillor of the Congress party has been arrested by the 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.[176][177] Her friends and relatives alleged that she was tortured in custody.[178]Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this will not pass muster, its not exactly neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an RfC, only your POV. Please withdraw. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Souniel Yadav, please do not withdraw solely at the urging of editors who themselves have demonstrated POV animus. I suggest we let others chime in. NedFausa (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A: Comment on content not user B. Read WP:RFCBRIEF, this is neither brief nor neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I agree that this is not a proper WP:RfC. Please read the guidelines. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator yesterday invited Souniel Yadav to please feel free to create a proper RfC, in a new section, including with a clear RfC question. If the question is unclear or this RfC is otherwise improper, please let that or some other admin remove it for cause. Pressuring the OP to withdraw it before substantive comments have been elicited is unseemly. NedFausa (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking someone to do something does not equate to asking them to do it incorrectly. I am not asking them to remove it, I am telling them its badly formatted and will get closed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Souniel Yadav, kindly read the discussion in detail as to understand why Ishrat can't be included in the article. In summary, it violates WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. SerChevalerie (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original wording of the RfC statement used by Souniel Yadav is indeed non-neutral, because it advances a point of view ("so can the former councillor Ishrat Jahan"). I've reformatted the RfC to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF. (I have no opinion on the issue.) — Newslinger talk 20:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, thanks for reformatting the RfC to comply with WP:RFCBRIEF.

SerChevalerie, Kautilya3, 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 guys are more experienced and so you should suggest better, neutral words (right now, not after a trial)!

NedFausa, Slatersteven, thanks for the support!Souniel Yadav (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and just to clarify, none of you are restricted to just the two options in the RfC. If anyone would like to propose another wording to use in the article, feel free to add it as another option. — Newslinger talk 02:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, Souniel Yadav, please read the discussion at Talk:2020_Delhi_riots#Multiple_violations_of_WP:BLPCRIME_and_WP:BLPNAME in detail as to why we cannot add Ishrat Jahan's name. She is hardly notable compared to the rest, being a mere councillor. Even Tahir shouldn't be added to the article (since he too, was just a councillor), but at that time it seemed that he was important to the narrative, which is why his name was added as per consensus. Since we are heading towards a rewrite of the entire article with good high-quality RS, we might end up removing Tahir's name too. SerChevalerie (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to note your opinion in the survey section above to ensure that the RfC closer takes it into consideration. — Newslinger talk 08:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the names of Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma should also be removed - they are not notable either!-Souniel Yadav (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate issue, read wp:other and wp:point.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they are, per WP:NPOL. They are either MPs or MLAs, unlike Hussain and Jahan, who were just councillors. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, since you said, "Seems to be we either name all of the arrested activists or none.", I'd like to point out that no other activists are currently mentioned, only significant notable people (MLAs / MPs, actors, authors) who have been arrested are. SerChevalerie (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

from one of the sources "At least two activists", that implies there may have been more. Thus any wording must reflect that. We also do not mention only one if two are named.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I put it in plural. I hope you choose option 3 now at least!Souniel Yadav (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "we should name all or none" is addressed by naming one?Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, yes there were more. Thanks for clarifying. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, since you don't mind naming the accused, please give another option with, "words you deem fit" (but I wouldn't like them being called activists - they are accused of incitement). I am averse to waiting for a trial which convicts her as it may take many years.-Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, you asked, Which part of "we should name all or none" is addressed by naming one? I believe that only the ex-Councillor, Ishrat Jahan is notable and so, I proposed, "Option 3".-Souniel Yadav (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this person notable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Hussain, Ishrat Jahan and Kapil Mishra, the chief inciters are notable people. The first two were Councillors and the last one was a minister in the Aam Aadmi Party Delhi Government.Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local Councillors do not meet WP:POLITICIAN, so I ask again why are they notable (and why is no one else named notable)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma were never in public office. Tahir Hussain, Ishrat Jahan and Kapil Mishra, the chief inciters are notable people. The first two were Councillors and they carry a lot of clout. Tahir Hussain is known to have stocked weapons in his building for the riots. Kautilya3 also believes they should be named for the same reason (notability).Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they ARE in public office. Anurag Thakur and Parvesh Verma are currently MPs while Abhay Verma is an MLA. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are allegations, not facts. Nor do they meet out notability criteria (no where do our polices say "and for stockpiling arms"). And who are all these other people? they are not listed in any of the options in this RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I will avoid the other names, but if someone is booked by the police for incitement, don't they deserve a mention (at least Kautilya3 believes so)!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Souniel Yadav, kindly read WP:SUSPECT. SerChevalerie (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am saying if more than one person is named or arrested we should list all of them, why is this one Councillor so important?Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want all to be mentioned. It doesn't right now!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does your text not name all of them?Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you meant, Anurag Thakur, Abhay Verma and Parvesh Verma, but now I see that you are talking of naming Sabu and Khalid Ansari with Ishrat Jahan. I don't mind if they are named, but I don't think they're notable!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity why would they not be notable?Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't hold any public office, that's why!-Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And being a counsellor is not a criteria here for notability.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believed Kautilya3 when he said that Ishrat Jahan can be named as she is an ex-Councillor, but if she can't, my arguments for it are useless. However, it would be a travesty if the main conspirators, Tahir Hussain and Ishrat Jahan are not mentioned in this article.Souniel Yadav (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear El_C, In the edit, with diff, in which he removes an edit of mine, NedFausa (talk · contribs) asks in the edit summary, " "fully" two-thirds is different from two-thirds how, exactly?" I am offering the reasons below, but may I request that these questions be asked first on the talk page, rather than in edit summaries when the editor in question is not sure about the edit. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• fully: The adverb "fully" is used to mean "the whole of; as much as," (OED, subscription only) or 1 : in a full manner : to a full degree : 2 : at least

• 1943 (OED) Triumphs of Engin. 115/2 It took fully ten years to get all this early work completed.
• 2015 (OED) Globe & Mail (Toronto) (Nexis) 1 Sept. a12 Fully two-thirds of the vehicles bore New Brunswick licence plates.
• <fully half the class> (Webster's)

• The expression has good precedence in publications of academic (university) publishers (presses).

• Somerset, Fiona (8 May 2014), Feeling Like Saints: Lollard Writings after Wyclif, Cornell University Press, pp. 194–, ISBN 978-0-8014-7098-1 Quote: "intentions of the translators who produced, in the course of several years of hard work, a translation of all of the bible's own words were it not for the fact that fully two thirds of the General Prologue to the Wycliffite Bible, chapters 3 through 11,"
• Otto, Hiltrud; Keller, Heidi (17 July 2014), Different Faces of Attachment: Cultural Variations on a Universal Human Need, Cambridge University Press, pp. 54–, ISBN 978-1-107-02774-9 Quote: " careful replication of Ainsworth's early work showed that 49% of the Bielefeld infants were anxious-avoidant, and fully two-thirds were not securely attached"
• Pharr, Susan J.; Putnam, Robert D. (5 June 2018), Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries?, Princeton University Press, pp. 9–, ISBN 978-0-691-18684-9 Quote: "In the late 1960s—at the very height of the Vietnam protests—an average of barely one-third of Americans endorsed these cynical views; by the early 1990s fully two-thirds of all Americans concurred."
• Scully, Pamela; Paton, Diana (4 October 2005), Gender and Slave Emancipation in the Atlantic World, Duke University Press, pp. 148–, ISBN 0-8223-8746-8 Quote: "plea of being married," and that fully two-thirds of St. Vincent females had given up working in the field, though Marshall comments that he probably meant two-thirds no longer worked regularly rather than rejecting all estate employment."
• Finally, it is used in encyclopedias. Pulitzer prize-winning academic Joseph J Ellis says in his Britannica article on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, "Sally Hemings had become pregnant only when Jefferson was present at Monticello, a significant revelation because he was away fully two-thirds of the time."

• I have used it because there are two sources (a) NY Times which says two-thirds of 53, and (b) Guardian which says three-fourths of 51 identified. It is one of those instances in which "fully two thirds" is appropriate, instead of "at least" which could mean more than 3/4's of 53 for which we do not have a warrant.

• I request that NedFausa self-revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In another edit, with diff, NedFausa has removed "conspicuously" from the construction "some Hindu leaders have taken to conspicuously parading alleged Hindu victims of Muslim violence in an attempt to reshape the accounting of events and to further inflame hostility towards Muslims." with edit summary, "remove redundant word – such parading is by definition conspicuous." But my sentence was a paraphrase of the NY Times sentence, "But some Hindu politicians continue to lead so-called peace marches, trotting out casualties of the violence with their heads wrapped in white medical tape, trying to upend the narrative and make Hindus seem like the victims, which is stoking more anti-Muslim hatred." But "trot out" (with meaning, "to bring forward (a person, an opinion, etc.) for or as for inspection or approval (OED)" is similar in meaning to "conspicuous" ( Obvious to the mental eye, plainly evident; attracting notice or attention." Parade on the other hand can have other meanings of "parade (v)", i.e. to march in a group, to make an ostentatious display," neither of which the alleged victims, who were presumably injured enough to be rendered less than agile, were reliably doing Rather, the meaning here is displaying (parading) in locations and manner for the injuries to be plainly evident. As before, this construction is used in 21st-century scholarly literature:

• Wyk, Ilana van; Posel, Deborah (1 May 2019), Conspicuous Consumption in Africa, New York University Press, pp. 157–, ISBN 978-1-77614-364-1 Quote: "By conspicuously parading in their finery, religious and political elites asserted their superior status."
• Erasmus, Desiderius (15 January 2015), Apophthegmata, University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, pp. 559–, ISBN 978-1-4426-2280-7 Quote: "When Socrates noticed that Antisthenes was rather conspicuously parading his torn and worn out garment he humorously took him to task, .."
• Crowdy, Terry (20 September 2012), Incomparable: Napoleon’s 9th Light Infantry Regiment, Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 202–, ISBN 978-1-78200-183-6 Quote: "After conspicuously parading it in view of the other regiments the rumours of losing an eagle ceased. "
• Bergmann, Luke (22 September 2010), Getting Ghost: Two Young Lives and the Struggle for the Soul of an American City, University of Michigan Press, pp. 46–, ISBN 978-0-472-02640-1 Quote: "Opportunistic brokers were able to stoke this fear by selling houses in white neighborhoods to black families or conspicuously parading black home buyers in white neighborhoods."

• I request here too that NedFausa self-revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both "fully two thirds" and "conspicuously parading" come off as editorializing and POV. What is the point of emphasizing that it amounts to 2/3rds beyond just saying it amounts to 2/3rds? As far as conspicuously parading, I would change both words. Even just "parading" has a certain tilt to it beyond stating bare facts. Just because academic publications do at times use POV or emphatic language does not mean an encyclopedia should in its own voice. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is "come of as?" To whom? To you? Or to some touchstone of the English language or its usage. I have just given you the OED and Webster's the two ultimate references for BE and Ame, and all you have is "come of as?" Besides, there are two sources. One says 2/3rds the other 3/4s. Such emphasis is entirely appropriate. I have given you an example from Britannica, written by a Pulitzer-prize winning academic. Would you like to go at with me one-on-one, referring to the best modern sources on usage and English syntax? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS ;Britannica

• Miocene Epoch Fully

half of the mammalian families known today are present in the Miocene record.

• Pluto's moons Charon, by far the largest, is fully half the size of Pluto. It revolves around Pluto—more accurately, the two bodies revolve around a common centre of mass
• Altitude On the average, fully half the water in the atmosphere lies below 0.25 km (about 0.2 mile), and satellite observations over the United States in April revealed
• Organized labour but even so, until World War II fully three-quarters of the active population was engaged in farming.
• Juno Beach (World War II) The first assault wave landed at 0755 hours, 10 minutes past H-Hour and fully three hours after the optimum rising tide.

There are dozens and dozens of other examples in Britannica. Just how much editorializing are they doing? I understand your points, and thanks for them, but ultimately we need some references to rely on. Anyway, I think I'm done with editing this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I'm not sure what you're asking me. But I'll venture to say that as long as the restrictions the page is subject to have not been violated, this is a content dispute that should be resolved in the usual way — through article talk page discussion, or if that reaches an impasse, pertinent dispute resolution requests. If you do find that Arbitration enforcement is necessary, I encourage you to submit a well-documented report at AE. I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how much attention I can devote to this article, as a single admin, as I am rather busy on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) with the world-wide pandemic. El_C 00:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know what to say. Obviously, I know the WP rules; but, equally, when someone keeps nipping at the heels of my edits (pretty much all content creation in the lead has been done by me) and has no reason to offer than personal preference, it begins to look like disruption. I am merely pointing that out. You will not find too many other examples of arguments supported by valued academic references, to which, nothing except personal like or dislike is offered as a counterpoint. Eventually, I will tire of this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one last one. In a third edit, with this diff, and edit summary," "The violence meted out to Muslims is viewed to have been targeted" – could this writing possibly be more pretentious? ," changing my sentence to, "Muslims were targeted by violence." But as you will see:

• The expression "violence meted out to" is anything but pretentious, having been used in academic literature in the 21st century:

• See here.
• However, "were targeted by violence," is a hard to find expression, appearing in just one run-on sentence in an academic publication: see here. I request again that NedFausa self-revert. I will now bow out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS El_C.  :) I'd rather you work on the pandemic. That is more important. Thanks.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, thanks. Glad you understand. Still, I'm going to, hopefully, stir you both in the right direction with the following. Indeed, pretentious is not an acceptable descriptor. NedFausa, please stop with the battleground approach — I've already warned you to tone it down once before. Fowler&fowler, you have made missteps, too, as far as civility goes. Hopefully, that will be the end of that as far as both of you are concerned. These times, especially, call for goodwill and positive collaboration, despite everything. That said, as mentioned, if either of you contend that there has been disruptive or tendentious editing, I recommend making use of AE. Because the article is subject to discretionary sanctions, you have access to this superior forum where a well-documented report gets to be evaluated by a quorum of uninvolved admins. El_C 01:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]