Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
2409:4050:2d97:f0bd:41e3:160c:5203:d0fc (talk)
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit
Restored revision 1090957725 by 331dot (talk): Dl comment from a randomIP
Line 94: Line 94:
:This article summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] state. Note that we cannot claim that someone "instigated" the riots unless they are convicted in a court of law, and not the court of public opinion, according to the [[WP:BLP|Biographies of Living Persons policy]](please review). If there are specific errors or missing information in this article that you can point out consistent with the BLP policy, please describe the specific changes here. I'd also advise you to review the archives of this page as what you want to do has likely been discussed before.
:This article summarizes what independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] state. Note that we cannot claim that someone "instigated" the riots unless they are convicted in a court of law, and not the court of public opinion, according to the [[WP:BLP|Biographies of Living Persons policy]](please review). If there are specific errors or missing information in this article that you can point out consistent with the BLP policy, please describe the specific changes here. I'd also advise you to review the archives of this page as what you want to do has likely been discussed before.
:Also note that the Indian government has pressured Indian media to report a certain narrative[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/world/asia/modi-india-press-media.html] . [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
:Also note that the Indian government has pressured Indian media to report a certain narrative[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/world/asia/modi-india-press-media.html] . [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
:[[User:59.177.109.4|@59.177.109.4]] to agree with you [[Special:Contributions/2409:4050:2D97:F0BD:41E3:160C:5203:D0FC|2409:4050:2D97:F0BD:41E3:160C:5203:D0FC]] ([[User talk:2409:4050:2D97:F0BD:41E3:160C:5203:D0FC|talk]]) 03:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


== Revert ==
== Revert ==

Revision as of 09:03, 18 July 2022

Template:IPA AE

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2022

The riots happened because of protest against CAA that was being opposed by Indian Muslims because they thought that their nationality would be confiscated where as the Indian government made it clear multiple times that no Indian citizen would be harmed. The Indian Muslims were misguided by their communal leaders and that was the primary cause of riots. 122.161.78.122 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I am unsure that this would change our article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done Please provide independent reliable sources to support your assertions. Make sure such sources are truly independent, as Indian media either has a dog in the fight(figure of speech) or is being pressured by the Indian government to report a certain narrative. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instigation of riots

Please dnt get biased, be fair in this opinion, Its well known that Riots were instigated by Non Hindus . The man was behind the attack had accepted his role behind Riots, who provided stones n petrol bombs in his apartment. Please be fair 59.177.109.4 (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article summarizes what independent reliable sources state. Note that we cannot claim that someone "instigated" the riots unless they are convicted in a court of law, and not the court of public opinion, according to the Biographies of Living Persons policy(please review). If there are specific errors or missing information in this article that you can point out consistent with the BLP policy, please describe the specific changes here. I'd also advise you to review the archives of this page as what you want to do has likely been discussed before.
Also note that the Indian government has pressured Indian media to report a certain narrative[1] . 331dot (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@Slatersteven: please clarify what do you mean by "views of one or two poeple should be given this much prominance"? And if you were so "unsure" then you shouldn't have made the revert in the first place. Firstly, these "two people" aren't ordinary folks but university professors who even have their own wikipedia articles. Secondly, there views were covered by RS in relation to this very event. Thirdly, its properly attributed and in quotation marks therefore you need to come up with a better argument based on WP policies for removal. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but wp:consensus is clear, it is down to you to make an argument for inclusion. My objection was that you have given their views too much prominence, now a reduced (say one line) nations of both of them might be OK, at the end of the section. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the addition was well founded as it is not a minority view. "The BJP is the political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a militant Hindu nationalist paramilitary organisation that has been accused repeatedly of orchestrating attacks on Muslims. The BJP, which believes that India should be a Hindu, not a secular, nation, has fostered an environment of hate in India. Lynchings of Muslims began and Muslims have been gradually relegated to second-class citizens in their own country. His landslide re-election victory in May 2019 prompted an escalation of the Hindu nationalist agenda." The Guardian. Hindu nationalist BJP supporters’ ‘pent-up anger’ behind deadly Delhi riots - France24Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of "this only needs one line" was hard to understand? And these is just two academics, as such wp:undue comes into it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"this only needs one line" says which policy? Now, these aren't two but four academics with criticism which rests the undue argument. For the sake of NPOV, if you can come up with academics having opposing views please bring them forward and insert it into the article. Peace. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We also have no policy saying we must include this either. Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we have WP:NOTCENSORED policy which means one cannot omit something out of their whim. Hindustani.Hulk (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Slatersteven. This is a tired old article. Make your case here and seek consensus for any nontrivial edits. Consensus typically takes several days, a week, sometimes several weeks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit reverted here about "Academic" section, the first paragraph sourced to Times[2] is about broader violence in India since the source itself says:"The trend we see across India is that a lot of the violence perpetrated against Muslims", and "When he was elected in 2014, there was a sharp uptick in lynchings of Muslims." Quotes were absolutely cherrypicked.

The second paragraph was clearly WP:RECENTISM and used the sources published 3 days before the riots actually ended.[3][4]

Can I get some eyes over at Talk:Persecution_of_Muslims#Delhi_riots where this disputed content has certainly found a life at Persecution of Muslims#2020 Delhi riots without gaining consensus over this main article prior-hand? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply