This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Crime and Criminal Biography 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Death 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Firefighting Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Hinduism 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. India: Karnataka / History Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). This article was last assessed in August 2020. Islam: Islam and Controversy 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Law Enforcement 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Religion: Interfaith 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 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 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inflammatary post on hindu gods in reply to that -inflammatary comment on Muslim god :Muhammad . Constant runner (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. This has already been debunked by AltNews. The post on Muhammad wasn't in reaction to any post on Hindu gods. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Constant runner (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact checking credibility of Alt News is certainty questionable. One of their co-founders was recently arrested for child doxxing charges. Also a theory isn't considered to be debunked after being proven fake by just one source. Besides, what other sources apart from Alt-News state that the Inflammatory Post on Hindu Gods was fake? TabahiKaBhagwan (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page archive we have a number of sources saying the claim is fake.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidada1 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
[reply]

Please remove these 2 dead links from ref. section. Thanks https://www.deccanherald.com/assembly-election-2019/congress-mla-akhanda-srinivasamurthy-files-complaint-regarding-attack-on-his-house-claims-loss-runs-upto-rs-3-crore-873237.html https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/08/12/business/ap-as-india-deadly-clashes.html Wikidada1 (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because these 2 are dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidada1 (talk • contribs)

I have changed the nytimes link to the original AP article. I am not sure what the deccanherald link is, since there are several. @Wikidada1:, which one of them is not resolving? Vpab15 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REf No. 29 https://www.deccanherald.com/assembly-election-2019/congress-mla-akhanda-srinivasamurthy-files-complaint-regarding-attack-on-his-house-claims-loss-runs-upto-rs-3-crore-873237.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidada1 (talk • contribs)

Thanks @Wikidada1:, that has been updated too. Vpab15 (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One needs to add information about how the violence was not pre-planned, as has come out in investigative reports. Also, that the police failed to take action.

Here are some (valid) sources. Lets discuss if anyone disagrees! ^{[1] [2] [3]} Tanyasingh (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC) ^[4][reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS clearly states the riots occurred in the late hours of August 11 and early hours of August 12. [1] and [2] among many. Also it is a Universal fact that past mind night, 12 AM is a new date but perhaps User:Slatersteven isn't aware of this fact, and is desperatley trying to push the end date as 11 August 2020, despite no WP:RS anywhere claiming that riots ended on August 11, incidents were reported on August 12 almost everywhere and major WP:RS including the two I showed specifically states the riots as a two day even on august 11 and August 12. Should we just include something based on individual user's opinion? No! We should include what WP:RS states! Wikipedia is about accuracy not personal opinions of certain users. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include: As per WP:RS and the common knowledge that past midnight is the start of a new day and what I stated above. Dilbaggg (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: faulty RfC, runs afoul WP:RFCNEUTRAL and WP:RFCBRIEF. This was previously discussed here. Most sources simply say "Tuesday night" (Tuesday was 11 August) or "the night of August 11". But there was some spillover into the wee hours of August 12. I would reverted Dilbaggg's change made before he started this discussion based on the earlier discussion but it would start a very lame edit war snd this probably isn't really an issue of any consequence, it doesn't really matter what date the infobox or the first sentence says. BTW, the second link points to weather coverage, you probably wanted to post some other page, Dilbaggg. Regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 21:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was previously discussed but no consensus was reached, and people can see I had the final comment and you failed to provide the valid argument but before filing the RfC I went inactive for personal issues. Let people see the sources themselves, no source claims August 11 as the end ot the riot, the sources shows that the riots happened on August 11 and August 12, I provided WP:RS you didn't provide any source stating the riots ended on August 11, I provided sources that states the riots occured on August 11 and August 12. Even before I first edited the article it was stated long back that incidents happened upto 5AM of August 12. Regardless I stand by WP:RS and it supports that the riots happened on the late hours of august 11 and the early hours of August 12 and it is my responsibility as an editor to give the accurate timeline. Btw i fixed the second link. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Include, per WP:RS provided by Dilbaggg - Idealigic (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Badly formatted RFC that draws its conclusion in the request (and comments on users), and is thus non neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Add that during an RFC the text should not be altered to the no consensus version. Also note that it is down to those making the change to achieve consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This RfC is lacking enough participants, what should be done? The sole person who voted agreed with Augsut 11-12 being the duration of the riots. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as no badly formatted as at least two users have pointed out..Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but 2 people me and the other guy voted inclusion, and WP:RS agrees that it was a 2 day event August 11 and 12, should there be further WP:DR? Dilbaggg (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not all RS do agree it was a two day event. Now any DR you try is going to end up like this if you do not word it neutrally. A simple "should we include this", and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am dropping the matter, the fact is it will be a 2 day event as all sources agree it went past 12 AM, and Wikipedia sometimes just includes inaccurate information just based on senior editors opinion. This will not make this Wikipedia article factually correct as the event in reality went past midnight making in August 11 and 12. Not a single source says "the riots ended on August 11." Anyway thank you for giving the time, you may close the RfC if you want, my last edit at this talk page. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Anachronistic 328, As per this article the Riots started due to disgreatory post on Prophet of Islam but actually the riots started due to Insulting of Hindu God Krishna on Facebook by Muslim Extremist, Better change the lead. The Article doesnt look neutral to be fair. Feel free to discuss anything more.Anachronistic 328 (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis has been discussed at length, and as I recall it turns out that post was from long before.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]