Talk:2002 Gujarat riots/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Rfc

Article was created on 19 October 2003. Until this 2 July 2013 version, over 1050 users have improved the article through more than 3600 edits as you can see from history statistics. Now User:Darkness Shines has created his own version of article in his userspace here. Some part of his version is inserted in the article before page protection. He wants to replace whole article with his version of the article. He believe that his version covers WP:NPOV of all wikipedia community. You are requested to comment whether community version should be allowed to replace with his own version. neo (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, I have commented out the RfC tag. RfC messages must be neutral. You're practically beating uninvolved users over the head with your opinion. If you want to work together on a neutral phasing, I will do so. However, your actions throughout this page are very rapidly beginning to cross the bounds of acceptable behavior, especially since this article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions, meaning that standards are held extra high. If you are unable to politely and civilly work with others, including dealing with the possibility that the version you like may not actually be the final consensus version, then you need to find a new topic to edit under. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

He has also posted to the Noticeboard for India-related topics [1], second time he has posted there about this article in fact. What happens when people come to vote in a now non existent RFC? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference request

Got here through some ANI discussion - and reading through the text I wanted to Request addition of reference/citation to this text.

Times of India claimed that 93 Muslims were killed by police fire and only 77 Hindus, however Gujarat Police and BJP claimed that majority of 198 Hindus (excluding the 59 killed in Godhra) killed were due to police fire and not in riots.

Also unless this is a quote can this be edited to say 93 muslims compared to 77 hindus... (using the word "only" makes it look like a competition, even if the death was 1 in count).  A m i t  ❤  15:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me the link for that please, I have one source which says 95% of Hindus killed was due to police shootings, this will corroborate it nicely. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I dont have one, thats why requesting some one to add it. This just seemed like a vague comparison of numbers. Also I am sorry to add (nothing related to content) but the flow and cohesion of the article as a whole is needing a lot of attention, also the lead section needs to be reduced a little bit too. what can be done for that? 15:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC) A m i t  ❤ 

I was fixing it but an edit war ensued between two other users, the current mess is the result. If the page ever gets unprotected I will be reverting back to the pre edit war version, which w about halfway through my fixes. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, back to something else then... not worth the wait on these articles with the edit war ensuing almost every time.  A m i t  ❤  15:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 July 2013

Please change the article to [revision 563017140]. The current state of article is a mess and it should be better if it is changed to this revision. The consensus is in favor of his version. (User:Neo's position is not included in this consensus since it was not supported by the policies of Wikipedia, and he will not be justifying his position anymore. See Talk:2002_Gujarat_violence#Edit_request_on_6_July_2013)

Rahul Jain (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Article is no longer protected. --regentspark (comment) 22:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article assuming that everyone is going to edit in good faith from now on. No edit warring and, per the ANI discussion, no mass reversion please. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 22:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo. (talk • contribs)

Chronology

I think there are some chronological problems because the section called "background" is almost entirely about the aftermath and ensuing investigations. But it is impossible to understand the investigations and their significance without first having the event and the violence described. I think the correct think is to have a background section that explains what communalism is, the history of communal violence in Gujarat and then describes the Godhra train fire while noting that it is not known what caused it but that Hindus reacted to the belief, whether justified or not, that Muslims acting under Pakistani orderes had caused the fire. Then describe the violence, and then describe the subsequent investigations into the events and the train fire, and the further repercussions untill this day.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I wonder if the "background" section should be removed. In my experience, "background" is usually just a holding space for info that should go into a better named/organized part of the article. Is that info duplicated? Should it be moved, or removed? I'm hoping that DS will jump in here, either with editing or with comments. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Background sections are useful for historical articles about events that are preceded by a complex set of circumstances such as this one. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The background to the 02 violence is the train burning, and there are now two sections covering it. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I don't think the Train burning is the background but the triggering event. The background is the general setting of communalist antagonism in Gujarat and India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well that is true enough, I can knock up a historical perspective of the issues since partition, that would then be the background and the train incident renamed to "Godra train incident"? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That's what I would recommend. I think the Godhra events should be considered part of the events themselves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus' revert

Maunus, could you please explain why you returned the article to a state where it was based on newspaper articles written at the time (i.e., WP:PRIMARY sources), as opposed to Darkness Shines' version, which was primarily written based on secondary sources written by academics with historical perspective? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding this much material to an article on a controversial topic, which has itself been the subject of edit warring, is a bit too forward (as I have learned from experience by making that mistake more than once). I think Manus should self revert and discuss the issue with the sources first, not revert and discuss later. That way, if proposed reverts/changes pass here on talk, consensus can be gained and if anyone does try to remove good material, a stronger case could be made against them. If consensus can't be gained then the involved editors ought to go from there (without reverting). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Maunus wasn't adding material--he was reverting to an older version of the article after DS removed very large chunks for being simply bad writing. Here's a clear way of thinking about it: should an encyclopedia article (Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia) be written mainly based on the accounts provided of an event while that event happened? Or should an encyclopedia, which is by definition a tertiary source, instead summarize what secondary sources, who have themselves analyzed the primary sources, have said? I know that I've written this as a leading question, but I'm trying to make this very very obvious: where possible, we should always rely on secondary, high quality, academic sources to describe things. Sure, in some cases, those don't exist (or don't exist yet). But we should always strive for that. Darkness Shines did all of that hard work to find the secondary sources and remove the primary ones. Neo and Maunas have been using specious arguments to keep the earlier, poorly sourced version. The length of time the article was bad (which it was--there is no doubt that a massive article like this based on newspaper clippings, including BLP violations, is bad) should be irrelevant to efforts to fix it. The mere fact that something is sourced is not, inherently, a reason to keep it. I am simply unable to understand the reverts to the earlier version, unless, of course, those reverting want to preserve a certain POV that's inherent in the on-the-spot reporting that's not there in later, more sober analyses. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We had a consensus to keep this version. Why should the article be reverted without consensus or discussion now, especially when it has just been unprotected. Rahul Jain (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted to my version, the only reason it looked like information had been removed is that the edit war had duplicated half the article, I have rewritten and added the bits Neo. had complained about above as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@User:The Rahul Jain, are you sure there was actual consensus on the pre-revert version? MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am quite sure, only User:Neo. disagreed. Me, User:Darkness Shines and most probably User:Qwyrxian too were in support of that version. Also, given the fact that User:Neo. failed to explain his position, it should not be counted for consensus. Rahul Jain (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rahul Jain, neither I nor Darkness Shines preferred that version. I had been confused about where the article had sat prior to DS's edits; the version you are suggesting actually contains both the original and the changed version, with a lot of duplicated and sometimes even contradictory info (without explanation). The one DS reverted to is the one that I would agree with, for now, based upon the explanations originally given in the edit summaries and my quick (though not in-depth) look at the changes made. I would, of course, be happy to discuss any specific individual changes, or even the change as a concept, but, as I explained above, I believe that the fundamental idea of moving to retrospective, secondary sources is obviously the way every Wikipedia article should move. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, I am supporting the same version which you and User:Darkness Shines prefer (and which is currently there in the article). See my edit request and the comment above in which I mentioned it. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The Rahul Jain and Qwyrxian jumped in on this article only to oppose me because of prior disputes related to Jainism articles. They had no idea what this article is about and what DS is trying to do. Their only point is to oppose whatever I am doing and support whatever opposite party, DS, is doing. That's why they got confused while reverting my edits. I am damn sure DS is laughing because of this mindless unexpected support from both of them. Even if they have realized their mistakes, it will be very embarassing for them to question or oppose DS. So their support to DS will continue. neo (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Actually I think I was mistaken in my revert, I didn't realize there was also a lot of less well sourced material that I was reinserting. I looked at the first couple of sources that were all academic secondary sources and then I didn't take as close a look at the rest as I should. My apologies. It has been reverted now right, so I don't need to self-revert?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

@User talk:Maunus, I guess there is no need to self-revert as it seems like a misunderstanding. Though it's good that most of the involved users seem to agree.

@User:Neo., uh...your comment just seems to be criticizing other editors personally. Is there a problem with the article in its current state or are you alright with its current status? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo...I've actually argued against Darkness Shines a number of times before. I think I may have even argued in favor of blocking him before, though it's possible I'm confusing him with another India-Pakistan-topic editor. In this case, I am completely clear with what you are doing: you are attempting to return the article to it's state where it was based mainly on newspaper accounts written during the events themselves (or shortly afterward), while DS has (correctly) changed the article to being based on reliable secondary sources--sources which you've rejected for completely fallacious reasons (some sort of ridiculousness implying that academic sources are more likely to be biased and POV pushing than newspaper sources). You'll find that I am very consistent about one thing on Wikipedia: on making sure our articles and editors follow policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What NPOV means

As I just reverted Neo, I realized that maybe some of the problem maybe simply be a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV means. If there are, for example, two major theories about what happened, NPOV does 'not say that we are required to give equal standing to each. Rather, WP:NPOV says that we have to weight the theories approximately equally to how they exist in the real world. Note, too, that this does not mean "approximately equal to the number of people who believe the theory"--it means the weighting as determined by experts in the field. For example, even though something like 40% of people in the US don't believe that the Earth is warming, or, if it is, it isn't the cause of human beings, our articles on Climate change state it as an undeniable fact that the Earth is warming due to human behavior; we do this because this is the overwhelming consensus among scientists, especially among national science organizations. So, we need to be careful that we weight the theories appropriately here; if all major research, especially research done later with more detailed evidence, supports one theory, we must give prominence to that theory.

Also, as a side note, due to the contentious nature of these claims, we probably should err on the side of too much citation rather than too little--we probably shouldn't use only a single citation for a full paragraph with lots of claims (though individual circumstances may vary). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you self-revert. I have given two investigation, by Human Rights watch and Nanavati report. Having said that, we go by reliable sources and not by investigations. If you want to clutter that section with sources, I will do it. But first self-revert and explain what is unsourced. neo (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You had a whole paragraph verified only by HRW, and as far as I saw from reading the page you linked to, many of the details were not in that report (unless they were on a different page). And, no, we don't go by "reliable sources", at least not the way you're saying. When we decide which theories to include, and in what weight, we look at the overall picture of what reliable sources say, paying particular attention to the most authoritative. Based on the sources you yourself included, along with those already in the article, the "Accidental fire" appears to be, by far, the more widely accepted theory. Thus, we must give precedence to that theory in our article, and make it clear that said theory is the primary one. Now, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your info and the sources you gave; if so, please explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have given Human Rights Watch and existing Shah-Nanavati commission sources. Here are another two sources, United Nations Human Rights Council and Time (magazine) sources which talk about muslim angle in Godhra train attack. Do you want more? Please explain by quoting sentences what is unsourced. neo (talk) 11:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Here is United States Department of State 2002 report which state that muslim mobs had attacked train. Do you want more? Please explain what is unsourced or self-revert. neo (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)A few things wrong with the edit ,one no single investigation needs a full overview here, that belongs on the other messed up article on the train burning itself. That is why when I rewrote I only gave a few lines per investigation, so all got the same weight. Second, "Attack by Muslim mob" violates POVTITLE in my opinion. Third and most important, absolutely nowhere in the HRW source you used are any of this "poured petrol in S-6 compartment of the train and set it on fire. The doors of the carriages were locked from outside, preventing the passengers from escaping thereby killing 58 passengers in S6 compartment." that I can see. Misrepresenting a source is not a good thing, so do not do it again. The section is fine as it currently stands. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are two different stories both of which should be mentioned and described and attributed. Taking one of those as fact in the title is a clear POV violation. Both stories start with the cadres causing an altercation with the Muslim shop keeper, then continue to the train stopping, but the cause of the fire itself and the existence of the Muslim mob is not determined. Sources from 2003/2005 typically give the story of the mob causing the fire and more recent stories generally describe the cause of the fire as uncertain. We should not rely on the primary sources here, but on how they are interpreted and weighted in secondary scholarly sources. The ohchr report is not a particularly good source here, since it is not specifially about this event, but simply summarizes other sources and it doesn't state which. Neo's misrepresentation of the HRW source is problematic, and also Neo's description of the Ayodhya events is highly partial. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)BTW, you will notice I hope that the newer source your cite (Time) says "a train full of Hindu pilgrims and activists was set on fire by an allegedly Muslim mob in the town of Godhra, killing 59" The USDoS report is from 2002, so how is that any good? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have changed title as 'attack by a mob'. Removed ayodhya vhp and petrol thing, i would have included source if my edit had been a minute earlier. But sorry anyway for missing it. Anyway, point of contention is "mob", so I will concentrate on it for the moment. Please take a look at this draft in my userspace. If you object about sources, I will go to RSN. Anyway, there are many sources. You will be flooded with sources if you reject reality. neo (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This version was much better than your previous one, but I agree with Qwyrxian's reversion based on the relative weight of the two theories. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The sources for the most part are junk, as I pointed out about Re two of them, the NYT sources is an Op-Ed, which is next to useless for a historical article. And is there any particular reason you do not like the current version? As it covers the same stuff you have written but has better sources, and of course the current version does not say "Muslim mobs" every few lines. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus By weight if you and Qwyrxian mean placing of sub sections, then I have no problem if 'accidental fire' is first subsection. @DS: The tone and info in the section is such that it makes reader believe that the fire was accident. I just want to give due weight to other side of the story. I have more sources but I don't want to clutter RS noticeboard. neo (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not care how many sources you have, as the section now stands all investigations are given equal weight, it is quite simply not possible to be more neutral than that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

So you are not talking about reliability of sources anymore? neo (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A court verdict has proven that there was conspiracy, how man such theories were proposed after the court verdict? Any such theories which were proposed before the court verdicts should be given less weightage. -sarvajna (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That is not how our policies work, which has been explained to you ad nauseum on the anti-muslim violence in India page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

and the policy says that conspiracy theories should be given more importance than the court verdicts ? -sarvajna (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A court verdict determines the legal consequences of an event, it does not determine what happened and didn't happen. Often times court verdicts are contested, or considered biased. If the viewpoint that a court verdict is biased is the mainstream viewpoint in the lityrature then that viewpoint should be given more weight. We report on what the relevant literature says, not on what judges say.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A court verdict is reached after taking into cognizance of what happened and what didn't, even a child would know that. Was the judgment of the judge that it was a conspiracy contested? -sarvajna (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Also, as I said to Neo. above, "Misrepresenting a source is not a good thing, so do not do it again." The same goes for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, DS, do you have any problem with reliability of sources? If not, I will include 'attack by a mob' as second subsection (after some more draft improvement). neo (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, I think you should present your sources here on the talkpage before making further edits. Then we can discuss which claim their are reliable enough to support.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Revert, why

I asked the editor on his talk[2] page to correct his source misrepresentation, he instead choose to add a synthesis to try and get around it, this is a violation of two policies and as such I have reverted the changes. Please do not restore that content unless a single source is used to support it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with the BBC source? The source says The court has accepted the conspiracy theory. It was not an accident," public prosecutor JM Panchal is quoted by the AFP news agency as saying.. I just summarized it. The Hindu source [3] I provided did support what I wrote, it says Additional sessions judge P.R. Patel held 31 persons guilty of a “pre-planned conspiracy” and setting fire to coach S-6 so DS and Maunus you both being disruptive. There was absolutely no synt when I used two source. How was it a synt? I hope you revert yourself. -sarvajna (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Jesus mary and joseph and all the saints, tell me, does the Hindu source mention the court case? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read the source? This is what the source say The special fast track court, which tried the Godhra train carnage case, was in agreement with the prosecution that a large number of local Muslims did gather “within minutes” of stopping the Sabarmati Express on the outskirts of the railway station on February 27, 2002, and they had stocks of petrol with them. Additional sessions judge P.R. Patel held 31 persons guilty of a “pre-planned conspiracy” and setting fire to coach S-6..-sarvajna (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are on 4RR, are you going to self revert or do I report you? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is your edit right? Guardian source, no mention of a conspiracy. The Hindu spurce, no mention of a courtcase. That is a synth. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is the Hindu source that is added now, sorry for the wrong source in previous edit, it was a oversight. -sarvajna (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, DS and Maunus, both BBC and Hindu source mention conspiracy. I am worried that RegentsPark will jump in to support your disruptive behaviour and protect DS version of article which is one sided. So I am trying not to edit war. Pls stop this disruptive behaviour. Thanks. neo (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Or some other partial admin. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

If you have nothing constructive to say then do not post. What's with the bullshit tags you planted all over the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The tags seems legitimate. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the tags are pointy, or do you not find it strange the only content he tagged is the stuff I improved? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have better stuff to do than to hunt down your sentences and tag them. In fact you should see it in a way that only the sentence you added are questionable; which shouldn't be a shock to you as you have done POV pushing before too. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a shock to me at all, but then again I am the one fixing the article, I am the one researching and finding the best sources, I am the one following NPOV. You on the other hand have yet to make one single constructive comment on this talk page, or one single constructive edit to the article. Fell free to provide a diff to prove me wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You fixing the article is just your POV again. And how is anyone gonna prove anything to you when you are always in denial. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I am such a wanker, using the best sources available, researching, following policy, it is a miracle I get away with it. Here I asked Neo. this question up above but he never did get around to responding, maybe you can, is this neutral?

Proposed edit

I think 'Godhra train burning' section is highly biased. Tone and info is such that it makes reader believe that the fire was an accident. Hence I am proposing two sections. Info of DS can go in 'accidental fire' section.

Attack by a mob

The Sabarmati Express train carrying Hindu activists to and from Ayodhya had scheduled daily halt at Godhra railway station. Godhra railway station is situated in pre-dominantly Muslim locality. In the morning of 27 February, Sabarmati express arrived at Godhra station at around 8 am local time. The exact sequence of events after this is unclear. Most of the sources report that Hindu activists alighted on platform for refreshment and a altercation started between Muslim vendors on platform and Hindu activists over paying of bill. The activist were shouting Hindu nationalist slogans and refused to pay refreshment bill until Muslim vendor say "Jai Shri Ram" or "Praise Lord Rama". Shortly after train left platform, someone pulled emergency chain to stop the train. A 2003 Human Rights Watch report states that "a Muslim mob soon gathered and surrounded the train compartment which was then set on fire". A 2002 United States Department of State report on International Religious Freedon state that "On February 27, 2002, Muslim mobs attacked a train in Godhra". In May 2002, European Parliament adopted a resolution which states that:

Condemns in the strongest possible way all the sectarian violence in India which followed the burning to death of 58 Hindu pilgrims on the train in Ghodra on 27 February 2002 by Muslim extremists and the ensuing violence in which Hindus indiscriminately targeted Muslims as reprisals

A 2003 Amnesty International report state that "On 27 February, a train in Godhra, Gujarat, was attacked and 59 passengers believed to be Hindus were killed". In a 2004 article for Social Science Research Council, Ashutosh Varshney writes that "according to credible press reports, the train was attacked by a Muslim mob". A 2007 United Nations Human Rights Council report writes that "the state's Muslim population was targeted in retaliation for an attack by a Muslim mob on a train carrying Hindu militants returning from Ayodhya." A 2012 TIME magazine article writes that "In February 2012, a train full of Hindu pilgrims and activists was set on fire by an allegedly Muslim mob in the town of Godhra, killing 59." A 2012 Wall Street Journal article writes that "the train was set on fire by a mob of Muslims". A 2012 Human Rights Watch report writes that, "The violence in Gujarat started when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire."

Comments

No. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Negative. Rahul Jain (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You both are supposed to explain why 'no'. And TRJ, stop supporting someone only because of our prior disputes. If I don't get reason from anyone, I will include it in the article.neo (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not neutral, it is just a collection of quotes, it is giving undue weight to the train incident. If you had managed to write "muslim mobs" any more than you have then the article would need to be renamed "muslim mobs kill people". Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Not neutral? Are these sources biased to muslim community? (2) I am giving direct quotes to avoid dispute over wording. (3) The train incident triggered all this violence. Why it is undue to tell other side? (4) You have written 'attacks on muslims' in whole article in gory details. At least I am not adding gory details of train incident. The point is that the section is written in such a way that it tells only accident side. I want to give due weight to other side. neo (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the events post Godhra, the attack on the train is mentioned already FFS, all this article needs regarding that is a summary, which it now has. Stop with the "Muslim mobs" And in case you had not noticed, there are a great many sources which say the violence was preplanned. All views on the train incident have been given equal weight already, all you wish to do is beat our readers over the head with "Muslim mobs". So no. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You have cited Banerjee report, Hazard centre investigation, CCT investigation, independent observers report to tell reader that the fire was an accident (muslims got nothing to do with it). You have cited some Ainslie to deny muslim hand. Then you start Shah-Nanavati report with tone to make believe that it was appointed by 'hindu nationalist' party to investigate attacks against muslims, therefore making reader to believe its credibility. Shah-Nanavati report writes "locals" word, not muslims. But still you go ahead in next sentence quoting some Pandya that Shah was BJP's man and Nanavati could be bribed. Purpose of this sentence and tone is to make reader believe that it was fake. Where exactly you are telling other side? International bodies like UN, Human rights watch, amnesty international, US etc either directly use muslim mobs or allegedly muslim mobs. I just found latest April 2013 UN report which use words 'allegedly perpetrated by muslims'. They don't give importance to 'accident' theory. Direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob need to be stated in the article. Now if you do not come up with better reasoning, I will include 'attack by a mob' sub section. neo (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been given the reasons, add it without a consensus and it will be removed. Before making any further suggestions I strongly recommend you go read NPOV a few times till it sinks in. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote from WP:NPOV, "Editing from neutral point of view(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately and, as far as possible, without bias all of the significant views that have been published reliable sources on a topic." Questions, (1) do you think my sources are not reliable? (2) do you think direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob is not significant view of all reliable sources? In that case do you want more sources? neo (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

But Neo, the view is already represented. And yes of course it is a significant view that must be in the article - but outside of Indian nationalist circles it is loosing ground.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo. Can you cite three secondary, high quality, academic sources which supports the attack by mob theory? Rahul Jain (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources, two from 2002/2003. Three primary sources and one blog post. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@DS, which sources are primary or blog? @Maunus I don't know what do you mean by "loosing ground". But this side should be in article. . @TRJ I can't search 'academic sources' in google books due to browser problem. Are you questioning reliability of above sources? neo (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean that scholars don't tend to believe it anymore. I can find one scholarly source from 2004 that gives the mob explanation and this is Varshney's piece here[4]. I'll keep looking.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article, as I have said, all views have been given equal weight. What in your proposal is not in the article currently? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, what do you mean? If white house statement declare war and it is covered in world media but not in some 'scholarly' book, does that mean declaration of war is unreliable source? Scholarly books are good for science, medicine, history, literature. Don't expect some scholar to publish book on events like 9/11. Too much info, analysis is already in media. No one will buy book which simply repeats info in media. If you believe my sources are unreliable, please tell me. I will go to RSN. I will not get caught in your 'scholarly' argument. And, DS, I have already proposed edit. Stop trolling. neo (talk)

Scholars have written hundreds of books and thousands of articles about 9/11 and dozens of books and hundreds of articles about the Gujarat riots. Those are the sources we should use, and they are the sources that determine how we weigh different explanations. Recent scholarship clearly tend to believe the accident explanation and not the Muslim mob explanation, or they simply say that the cause is unknown.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I ask you a question and you accuse me of trolling? I shall ask again, what in your proposal is not already covered in the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus September 11 attacks article is using media sources. I have posted in RSN to take opinion of others reg credibility of sources.
@DS, My opening thread and also this comment answer your question. neo (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus September 11 attacks article is using media, government websites as sources, not "academic books". I have posted in RSN to take opinion of others reg credibility of sources.
@DS, My opening thread and also this comment answer your question. neo (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are not responding to the question put to you, what in your proposal is not already covered in the article? Kindly give a direct response. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DS, the 'godhra train burning' section is not covering the direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob in fire as given in reliable sources. And let me make it clear, 2012 Human rights watch report, 2012 US religious freedom report, 2013 UN report still talk about direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob. neo (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your obsession with writing "Muslim mob" everywhere is depressing. Is this currently written in the section on the train burning "the attacks on the train had been pre-planned and was the result of a conspiracy by locals" A simple yes or no shall suffice. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the text exists but without meaning. If it is depressing for you to see 'muslim mob' so many times, here is the solution. You should write one line that "the Banerjee, hazard centre, CCT investigations and other independent observers have concluded that the fire on the train was an accident". I will write one sentence that, "UNHRC, EU, USCIRF, Amnesty, HRC, SSRC, TIME, etc writes in their reports that muslim mob was directly or allegedly responsible for fire on train". Agree? If not, you may continue to argue in DRN. Then I think issue will go on in RFC/U. RegentsPark and Qwyrxian will have to answer to community why they allowed highly biased material in the highly controversial article. As you have threatened above to revert my edit, I will not edit war. I will use EVERY option in wikipedia policy. Think with calm mind. Thank you and Good night. neo (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not agree as we do not duplicate content. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference, if you (Neo) want to seek outside opinions on the topic, you start an RfC. If you want to argue that a particular user has had long term poor behavior across Wikipedia (or, at least, on a series of articles), you raise an WP:RFC/U. You can't start an RFC/U about my (or anyone else's) conduct at only this one article, unless you could show that I've had months or years of poor behavior here. And since I didn't even know this article existed until a week or so ago, that won't work either. Just want to make sure you start the right process. Also, you can't start an RfC/U because you haven't done the necessary pre-cursor steps, nor do you (I assume) have a person to certify it (though I'm sure you could find someone with a grudge against myself or RegentsPark). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Please do me a favor and leave this section blank. I will use this section to post in upper thread because my edit box can't handle more than 5000 characters. I will blank this thread when disussion is over. Thanks. neo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

31 convicted, we know already

[5] Now in the article three frigging times. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to reflect the material in the article. Prior to that edit, lead promoted a certain theory which contradicted facts that have been outlined in multiple court findings and investigations.Pectore^talk 19:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The lede does reflect the material in the article, the lede reflects the academic views of the incident, as well as all the investigations. Per NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Or, to put it a different way--court findings are not Reliable sources. I know that may sound odd, but a judge's opinion is a legal decision, it's not reviewed by an editorial board or fact-checked. Of course, we should talk about court findings, but what we should do is write about what secondary sources say about those findings and the results in them. For example, if Person A was convicted of murder, but later academic analysis conclusively showed the murder was committed by Person B, and that analysis were widely accepted, our article would state, as facts, that 1) Person B committed the murder, and 2) Person A was charged, tried, and wrongly convicted of the murder. I don't htink I can say this clearly enough: academic sources trump, by a very large margin, both of-the-moment news reporting and legal decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I would phrase that differently: Court opinions are primary sources regarding the judge's legal opinion - they are reliable for that information. Otherwise of course you are entirely right.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Is there any official policy that court findings should not be considered as non reliable?judge's opinion is a legal decision, it's not reviewed by an editorial board or fact-checkedWrong, a judge arrives at judgments based on various evidence, facts presented in the courts and based on the testimony of the witnesses. Since when did Wikipedia started rejecting legal opinions? Also how many such theories do we see after the court gave its verdict?-sarvajna (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Court decisions in common law countries are not "opinions" or "legal opinions", they are rulings and judgements often given by judges who are legal scholars or experts in their field. Court judgements are fact-checked and they do not have to be reviewed by any editorial board. A court concludes its findings on the basis of a rigorous process of fact-checking through analysis of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. So, yes, court decisions are far more reliable than academic sources that tend to contradict them simply in a matter of opinion. Court judgements are also primary sources, and hence it is always advisable to use reliable secondary sources that quote specific portions or provide an analysis of the judgement. A critique of a judgement (academic or otherwise) should not be given undue weight-age, because such critiques are not sufficient to establish a mainstream viewpoint. On many occasions, academic sources often reflect opinions of the scholars themselves (which may swing one way or the other), however these are simply opinions or assumptions that the scholar has been working with and should not be confused with concrete empirical research or findings. However, there may be an apparent consensus among certain scholars on a matter of opinion, and that may be included while being quoted as such with due regard. WP:RELY says: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Court findings are NOT reliable sources? On the other hand, an editorial board or an obscure academic scholar sitting within the air-conditioned confines of their rooms and writing about their opinions on some matters are reliable! Exactly how? Shovon (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Where the hell do you get the idea that a court judgement is fact checked? A judge hears from both prosecution & defence, and then makes his judgement based on what he has heard. There are no "fact checking" done by a court, ever. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, this is not a bar brawl where you can address your opponents in a manner of your choosing. This is a discussion on a Wikipedia article talk page, so please be civil while addressing other users. An adversarial court proceedings involves analysis of evidence presented by the prosecution and its refutation by the defense. The judge, in their official capacity, also ensures that due process is followed and the principles of natural justice and equity are applied in consonance with the Criminal Procedure Code or the Civil Procedure Code. The judge bases their ruling by weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. On a side note, how do you think scholars/editorial board engage in the process of fact-checking? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not have "opponents" I will leave that for those with a battlefield mentality. And judges do not fact check, so were the hell you get that idea from is beyond me. Scholars on the other hand cross reference information and search for sources on a subject, they do field work. A judge sure as hell does not. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

While this philosophical discussion is quite interesting nonetheless, the most germane point of Nick's post was that certain sources may be outdated (such as ones from 2004 that are cited in the lead). Certain cited academics in 2004 or 2006 more likely had less information to go off of than a court in the year 2011.Pectore^talk 07:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nick does not have a point, and the majority of academic sources in the lede are dated 2011/2012/2013. And these also agree, strangely enough with slightly older sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. How could I have glossed over the informed academic perspective provided by Desi Divas: Political Activism in South Asian American Cultural Performances? Pectore^talk 07:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Any reason in particular you are removing reliably sourced and notable opinions form the article? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to back up a bit, I think Maunus put it better than I did, which is that a court decision is only reliable for the opinion of a judge, and for the actual, factual result ("Person A was convicted, Person B was found innocent, Person C paid a million dollar fine, etc."). Beyond that, secondary sources are king. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, if a person A is convicted by the court then it is considered to be a fact that he/she has commited that crime, beyond that if there are any other opinions they are just opinions of the author. -sarvajna (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, if a Person A is convicted of a crime then it is considered a fact that the court was of the opinion that they had done something punishable. A person may for example have killed someone without any doubt, but still be acquitted because of a legal technicality. Court's don't define reality they define the legal consequences of a particular set of evidence. Research studies are not "just opinions" they are research results, no matter how hard you try to discredit them when they disagree with you. If Research into a court case of the past finds that a person has been wrongfully convicted and the majority of other mainstream scholars fight their evidence and argument convincing then that is the story we include. That is how science works, and that is how wikipedia works. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:CRIME A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. When courts says that someone has not committed crime then we should assume that he has not committed crime.WP:BLP also says the same thing A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. -sarvajna (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is a part of BLP used to protect living individuals. You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it. Your consistent misrepresentation of policy can only be considered wikilawyering and it is getting tiresome.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting any policy, I am just quoting it while you on the other hand wants to throw the policy into the dustbin by relying on what you believe to be correct.You cannot use it to draw the opposite conclusion namely that if a court convicts someone then we should assume that they have committed it that is what the courts are meant for, they inform us whether a person is guilty or not.-sarvajna (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes and the social sciences are just people writing and publishing their uninformed opinions. You've said that already... And it was wrong the first time too. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes they are just opinions and cannot override a court's decision in a civilised society.-sarvajna (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment In above thread and this thread, DS and Maunus are arguing about reliability of governments and courts. So basically we are arguing...
Whether democratically chosen governments, parliaments and courts appointed by them are more reliable than 'academic books'.
Whether governments, parliaments and court findings-decisions are "original research", irrelevant or less credible than 'academic book'.
Whether 'scholars' must write a book analysing every govt, parliament and court decision.
Whether in absence of 'academic book', one sided POV should be allowed in the article. Or whether lede should reflect only 'academic views' but not views of other sources.
WP:RS is not clear about this because I don't think such situation arised somewhere on wikipedia. I am seeing similar arguments of DS and Maunus on other articles also. These arguments will continue on other articles also by wikipedians like DS, Maunus, Qwyrxian until some specific lines in policy are cited. I think policy discussion at appropriate forum is necessary to solve this issue. Otherwise government, parliament and court decisions regarding crime on planet Earth are 'original research' or less credible until some 'scholar' write a book to certify that decision. Thanks. neo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Policy, actually, is perfectly clear. Please re-read WP:RS, especially the WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY parts. Except for citing very specific facts that require absolutely no interpretation (i.e., "X was found guilty of crime Y"), we should not use primary documents. If any interpretation is needed--and I mean literally any--we may not use them. So, for example, we cannot use a court case to say "Person X committed a murder"--that's interpretation; all we may say is "Person X was convicted of murder". We cannot use a court case to say "Person X was at the scene of the crime", even if said fact was explicitly stated by a lawyer or police officer in the court transcripts; we could, maybe say, "According to police officer Y, X was at the scene of the crime." So, yes, people could "argue" about this at other locations, but that doesn't mean the arguments are valid when the policy is very very clear. Now, I do have to admit that the policy is a bit more complex if we are comparing, for example, a newspaper report to an academic article, since some newspaper articles bridge the gap between primary and secondary sources. And we also get, as people have come up with above, the fact that something published a week after an event, no matter who publishes it, will on average be less useful (though not necessarily less "reliable") for an encyclopedia article than something published years after. So those debates will, of course, continue, because many of them are discretionary issues...that's why we have these discussions--to try to form a consensus. Oh, one last thing, though, Neo--these kind of debates happen all the time--there is absolutely nothing new in this talk page. Just look, for example, at any article on an Indian caste where someone wants to use the British censuses from 1871 as a "fact"...or even just look at other articles about high-profile crimes. The Amanda Knox case, for example, has caused literally hundreds of pages of debate, and quite a large number of blocks and bans of people who wanted to push a POV rather than actually follow policy (or who simply were too invested in the topic to understand that they weren't being neutral). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian your comment is very helpful, especially So, for example, we cannot use a court case to say "Person X committed a murder"--that's interpretation; all we may say is "Person X was convicted of murder" but if I was writing about the vicitm can I say that Person X was killed by person Y when person Y is already convicted by the court? For example we write Gandhi was assassinated by Nathuram Godse.-sarvajna (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes you can write that if that is the consensus in reliable secondary sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Human Rights Watch has prepared this report using dozens of sources. UN has prepared this report after consulting many bodies. Court prepares report or verdict after analysing many documents, witnesses, prosecutors etc. An academician may not do analysis to such magnitude. But still, why you treat academic book as statement of fact and treat other analysis as primary sources? When X accuse that Y is murderer, X is sheer primary source. But when other persons agree that X is right, when prosecutors check witnesses and documents and when judge come to the conclusion, then judge is like some scholar doing analysis. Why judge should be given less weight or his verdict should be treated primary or original research? neo (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Dude that HRW website is not a "report" but a basically a blog post that is arguing that anti-Muslim violence is a problem and that the state of Gujarat is biased against Muslims and refuse to carry out justice. It basically supports the opposite point of what you are trying to make it support. You are also misrepresenting the OHCHR source which states that "6. The Special Rapporteur’s attention was particularly drawn to the high level of communal violence in Gujarat. The most serious incident dates to 2002, as a consequence of the burning of a train which caused the death of 58 Hindu pilgrims in February 2002. It was alleged that Muslims perpetrated the incident, which resulted in retaliatory acts and, eventually, communal violence." Very clearly it does not say that a muslim mob burned the train, it says it was alleged. If you can misrepresent sources this much you give us very little reason to take you seriously at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That 2012 HRW report or article is quoting this 2002 report. It talks about muslim involvement in train attack and I am quoting it. Should I mention attacks on muslims and gujarat govt involvement in 'Godhra train burning' section? That report is used by DS in 'attacks on hindus' section. Why can't I use it in other section? And where is misrepresentation when I am directly quoting from sources in this proposed edit? neo (talk) 09:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, you need to read the sources you use. It seems you have siomply made a search for the phrase "Muslim mob", but not actually read the meaning of the source. The report cites News reports for the "Muslim mob" part and then in the following paragraph writes that "In July 2002, results of an official investigation by the Ahmedabad-based Forensic Science Laboratory stated that the fire could not have been set by the mob from the outside as had been alleged; the fire, it claimed, was set from inside the train." And it does not contradict this. The report then clearly goes on to suggest that the incident had been preplanned by Hindus and that VHP activists had been moving in and out of Ayodhya in the days prior to Godhra and that few if any of the Godhra victims were Kar Sevaks. The HRW source is clearly arguing against the viewpoint you want to use it to support. It is disruptive to do this kind of misrepresentation of sources, and puts either your good faith or competence to edit in line with the rules into serious question.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus - HRW has attributed science lab investigation. If you have still doubt, this is summary of the report i.e own conclusion of HRW after analysis. Please tell me what are you seeing. neo (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not entirely clear to me what it is you are trying to say here, there seems to be some language problems. The source yuo mention was published before the Banerjee investigation concluded that there was no mob, and it is clearly arguing for the opposite case that you are. For example it writes "The report, based on investigations conducted in Ahmedabad in March 2002, revealed that the violence against Muslims was planned well in advance of the Godhra massacre and with extensive state participation and support." I think it is a fine source, and we should use it to source the article, but not specifically on this point which is not one of its central points. I do note though that it also mentins that Muslims retaliated against Hindus in the weeks following the riots. We should probably include that more prominently. It is just hardly mentioned in any of the reliable sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources used in this article

There have been academic sources used in this article. Are there other users verifying the content (and its context) that has been used to back assertions in this article? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You trying to say in a backhanded way that I misrepresent sources? Or does AGF only count when it suits a certain POV? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

No, I am concerned about the context that these views have been used in this article – are these simply opinions of the authors or findings from their field work or simply the authors quoting certain news reports appearing in the media. Since I do not currently have access to an online library, I cannot comment on these issues with certainty. Therefore, I am seeking more input from other participants on this page. Please don't take any comment personally unless it is specifically directed at you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Academic sources represent research findings not opinions. Academics are trained to study the field they are studying and the validity of their results are corroborated through the review process. Their choice of methodology shouldn't matter to you or to us as long as it has passed a peer review process. If you suspect sources are being misrepresented you should check it. If you have a specific suspicion of a particular source and you ask me nicely I might check it for you since I have access to a good library.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As in the case of Narendra Modi article, I suspect some sources relying extensively/solely on investigative reports published by Tehelka and other tabloid news. In such cases, it is essential to investigate whether these are actual research findings based on empirical evidence or an expression of opinion or reliance on rumours that have been reported elsewhere. For this reason alone, it is essential for all editors to know and understand the purpose of the research and the methodology behind the analysis and interpretation of events. According to WP:RS: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories, or controversial within the relevant field." Many of these works may actually make exceptional claims in direct contradiction to court rulings and judgements. Such sources are to be carefully used and only given the weight they deserve in relation to established mainstream views. And thank you for offering help. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• No Nick, i dont think anyone is checking that except the guys who are adding it. And of what use will it be? Why bang heads on walls? But you are right. For example Arvind Pandya bit comes from the video tapes of Tehelka which were inspired from fictional films and whose authenticity was questioned and found inadmissible. Previously it was stated in the article that the Banerjee Commission was first such to investigate. When asked for citation, it was removed. Am sure many such stuff will go if questioned. But then again the head and wall and the admin army's you-will-be-blocked doesn’t even allow others to add tags. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, the Tehelka reports have all been proven 100% authentic. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! Authentic to have been inspired from a Bollywood flick. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Also I don't have access. I am sure, all his more than 80 sources are discussing 'muslim mob' theory also. But he won't mention it. We need to find someone who has access to his sources. neo (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

BLP issues

Please use this section to list out potential BLP issues in this article. WP:BLP states: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page."

Nanavati

• "In a recording by Tehelka Arvind Pandya who is counsel to the Gujarat government, stated that the Shah-Nanavati commission would fall in favour of the BJP, as Shah was their man and Nanavati could be bribed." [Jaffrelot, Christophe (2011). Religion, Caste, and Politics in India. C Hurst & Co. p. 398. ISBN 978-1849041386.]

I do not have access to this publication, however the Tehelka tapes were investigative reports, including sting operations, which were conducted by certain individuals and they make some claims. These claims have not been proven in a court of law and hence are only assertions made by authors or opinion of authors and potentially defamatory. They should be immediately removed as WP:BLPCRIME applies.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope, as nobody is accused of being guilty, nor having committed a crime. What we have is a reliable secondary source reporting on what a person said. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct, it is Pandya who is making an accusation on camera, wikipedia can report his statement because it has in turn been reported in other reliable sources. The constant nonsense about everything not proven in a court of law being "opinion" is becoming ludicrous.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That Tehlka sentence is clearly WP:SYNTHESIS. It is combined to destroy credibility of Shah-Nanavati report. Example from WP:SYNTHESIS:

N The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.

Also see WP:NOREX for more examples. DS should remove that sentence without argument. neo (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not synthesis, because reliable sources use the Pandya interview as an example of the the dubious status of the Nanavati commision. IN fact Nanavati himself has responded publicly to the accusations, showing their notability.[6] In fact the HRW source you have yourself peddled here, criticizes the Nanavati commision along the same lines.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please provide the portion of the paper that makes this assertion over here. Additionally, please review WP:BLPCRIME: "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

These people are not "relatively unknown" And as has already been pointed out to you, twice now in fact, what we have is a reliable secondary source reporting on what a person said. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus - It is like some editor trying to include following synthesis in Moon article: "Man landed on Moon on 20 July 1969(sourced). Some people say that NASA's Moon landing was hoax!(sourced)." And then, just like you did, that editor may give this link to say that as NASA has responded Moon landing hoax allegations, therefore it is notable and it should be written this way. Ah? neo (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that the moon landing is not contested in many reliable sources. The outcme of the Nanavati-Mehta commission is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian

User:Qwyrxian, you reverted my edit within minutes but have not yet commented on my further improved proposed edit in above thread. Are the sources not reliable? Or what? neo (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have commented extensively, as has Darkness Shines and others. Your edits do not meet WP:NPOV, and, to a lesser degree, violate the need to focus on secondary sources rather than primary. You have continuously refused to discuss this point. You keep acting like all you have to meet is WP:RS/WP:V and then your info, however you phrase it, with whatever weight, should be in the article. WP:V is only one of our rules, and if you read WP:V, it does not say "If something can be verified, it should be in the article"; rather, it says that being verified is only the bare minimum criteria.

So, if you'd like to address the NPOV and primary vs. secondary sources issue, we can go further, but if you're unwilling or unable to follow all of our policies, then I'm simply not sure how to proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Neo, please consider involving a mediator for dispute resolution or starting an RfC to seek wider input. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: here you reverted my edit just after 6 minutes. Then in this discussion you insisted that 'accident theory' is primary theory. I have said that I have no problem if it is mentioned first in the article. Maunus pointed out my few unsourced sentences. I have said I could not include source because edit was reverted in 6 minutes and apologized for it. I started gathering more sources and as point of contention is "direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob", I concentrated on it and prepared new draft and posted it in above this 'proposed edit' section. In response,
(1) DS is insisting that I should not include my draft in the article because he has covered 'direct or alleged muslim mob involvement' theory. I have pointed out that he has not. He has stated only Shah-Nanavati report and in next sentence he has done WP:SYNTHESIS to destroy credibility of that report.
(2) He said out of my 6 sources, 3 sources are primary and 1 source is blog, but refused to tell which. Then here in RSN, first he said that sources are not dispute at all. Then again insisted that my 3 sources are primary and 1 blog but again clearly refused to tell which.
(3) Maunus said that scholars don't support old theory of muslim mob involvement, I pointed out that even 2011, 2012, 2013 sources are talking about direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob. Maunus insisted to use only scholarly sources or books. I pointed out that almost all sources used in September 11 attacks are media, govt site sources.
(4) DS said that it is depressing to see 'muslim mob' word so many times in my proposed edit. I proposed that he should write his 'accident' theory in one line and I will write 'direct or alleged muslim mob' theory in one line. But he refused my proposal.
(5) The Rahul Jain asked me whether I can find 3 scholarly books. I answered him I can't search google books due to browser problem and asked him whether my sources are unreliable. He didn't reply.
(6) During this discussion you, Qwyrxian, commented only once and that too about RFC/U. You didn't comment a single word about my proposed edit.
NOW (1) I ask you, DS, Maunus and The Rahul Jain to type with absolute clarity and name which of mine sources are primary or unusable. I will ask other users and if necessary, I will bring secondary sources for them. Please type with absolute clarity whether you need more sources to establish notability of 'direct or alleged involvement of muslim mob' theory. (2) If you all four have made up your mind not to allow edit on this issue no matter what, then type it clearly. neo (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nick - I have asked for mediation in WP:INB. Last time my Rfc was forcefully removed by Qwyrxian and has threatned to ban me. Should I go for DRN or Rfc this time? neo (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I see based on reading what you wrote from the sources you provided. Two of the sources, WSJ, and Time, assert that the train was set on fire by a Muslim mob. All of the other sources you provided state, instead, that there 1) was a Muslim mob, and 2) the train caught on fire, and very clearly do not assert a connection between them. However, the whole purpose of the section you've proposed is to assert the "Muslim Mob" as the cause of the fire. That's the problem. You've taken a bunch of sources that vaguely relate to your suggested point, but misrepresented most of them to imply a cause and effect relationship which is not there. That is the problem. Now, I don't know whether to call this an WP:NPOV problem, an WP:OR problem, or simply a reading comprehension problem on your part. But you've got a whole bunch of sources which do not support your main argument, and you're using them in a way to imply that they do support it. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

How about these lines: (1) "some sources like a, b, c states that the fire originated inside the train accidently" (2) "some sources like x, y, z generally states that allegedly a mob of muslims attacked the train and the train caught fire". neo (talk) 10:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

There were several inquiries into the train burning incident

Obvious statement really, so why the CN tag? Pointy much? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not include personal commentary into an encyclopedia article. Quote specific sources making specific claims. Vague hand-waving doesn't make the article encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"There were several inquiries" is a statemennt of fact not a personal commentary or handwaving.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is not factual information. As far as I know there was only one official and constitutional inquiry - the Shah-Nanavati Commission. The Banerjee Commission was declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court. Please provide proper sources for your assertions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. That is ridiculous reasoning. The multiple inquiries are supported by a slew of reliable sources, and the fact that it was declared illegal by the Gujarat high court (which has been highly criticized as partial and biased by dozens of neutral observers, including the sources provided by Neo himself) does not mean it doesn't exists. I will remove your pointy and disruptive tag immediately.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There was only one legit inquiry. One was non-constitutional. And other all that you are counting under "several", which you aren’t mentioning by names, are just personal projects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You are contradicting reliable sources. Talk about "opinion".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, the burden of proof to support the assertion falls on you. Please include a proper citation to the assertion or revert yourself. Please do not accuse others of disruption without cause. I could have very well removed the phrase from the article, but chose not to, giving you the opportunity to present reliable sources. Inquiries are governmental in nature, and if there are private projects which have their own specific findings, they should be explicitly noted as such. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have lifted that burden already and added a source that lists the chronology of inquiries. There is no requirement that an "inquiry" be governmental in nature and usually independent inquiries by NGOs are considered reliable. The status of the banerjee commission is already mentioned in the article. My accusation of disruption was not without cause as the insertion of thag was clearly not done in good faith as even a two second google search could have found reliable sources for the existence of seveal inquiries. Apaert from the source I have added it is mentioned in sources by Ogden, Jaffrelot, and several others. Most of which are readily available online. Your failure to consult them is not my problem.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between governmental and private inquiries has to be clearly made. The assertions you include or defend in the article have to be properly cited. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, minor copy edit and an academic source added. And yes Nick, it is pointy to tag a sentence which states the obvious. "There were several reports" which is then followed by discussion of three reports. So it is pointy and time wasting, much like your ANI try. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

That was not minor copyediting. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ, this is most certainly not a major edit. And what does it matter anyway? As the consensus version has again been editwarred out, strange that you are not adding CN tags to that which now resides in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines

You want to own whole article or abandon it. Why go to extreme? I have seen this Gujarat violence on TV right from breaking news about Godhra. As per my understanding, Muslims attacked train but after that Hindus went on killing Muslims and Gujarat govt supported it to some extent for few days. Have I ever argued that Hindus didn't kill Muslims or Gujarat govt was not part of the killings? But I simply won't accept your one sided version about Godhra. My whole argument is about Godhra. I don't think I will argue about other section, except for tone and gory details. I won't try to prove that Gujarat govt was not involved at all.

You have added some very good contents (under GFDL). Please learn to accept other's views and other side of the story. Please restore version of Utcursch. After that, I won't be on this article for a long time. neo (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Train burning

This is the current consensus version, that last rewrite replaced academicly sourced content with newspaper articles at least one primary source, some had no sources at all. So I have reverted to the consensus version. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. It had consensus of Maunus and as I have pointed out few times, Qwyrxian and The Rahul Jain support you only because my prior dispute with them on jainism articles. Now you are supposed point out what is unsourced in Utcursch's contents. But having said that, you don't accept even sourced text. I am reverting your edit. neo (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Please respect the consensus version. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, Neo. is edit warring against consensus, he is reverting in unsourced content, content sourced to a primary source, statements of fact sourced to opinion pieces. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Please tell which are unsourced sentences, primary sources, opinion piece in Utcursch's contents. Your version never had consensus. Don't try to suppress other side taking advantage that most users don't have access to academic books. neo (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no. You are once again editwarring against consensus, the fact that you cannot even see what is unsourced or which sources used are primary or opinion pieces only shows thta you have not even looked at the content, just editwarred. The fact that academically sourced content has been removed in violation of NPOV does not seem to bother you? I am not going to discuss anything with you, self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

This is complete, pure, utter bullshit. The reverted to version is absolutely, undeniably in violation of multiple policies, some so extreme that they do real harm to living people. That version may not be reverted to. I cannot stress this enough--policy requires that we replace, whenever possible, primary sources with secondary. Policy requires that we not misrepresent sources into claiming something which they do not. Policy requires that we not treat allegations against living people, named or unnamed, as if they are fact. I have reverted back to the currently best, though certainly imperfect, version. Any reverting to that version again will result in my request arbitration enforcement against the violaters; I'm already going to do that for one of the editors above. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian please take a look at this, its revision 564327311 versus the current one. I think the former is better. Rahul Jain (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DS, as evident by the reverts, there was no "consensus" on this version (which you restored the article to). Anyways, here are my arguments:

• Your version doesn't clearly distinguish between these two things: (1) the initial confrontation / stone pelting (2) The train fire. All the theories (including "accident" and "Muslim conspiracy") agree that the mob pelted stones: the debate is on whether it burnt the coaches or not.
• Your version has subtle POV-pushing, achieved through omission or complete twisting of what the sources say. Two examples:
  • "concluded that the fire had been an accident" - omitting the words "most probably" used in the source cited, not to mention the spelling/grammatical mistakes (e.g. "independent inquires", "both which concluded" etc.)
  • "According to Columbia Professor of History Ainslie Thomas Embree the official version of the attack on the train: that it was organized, pre-planned and carried out by people under orders from Pakistan, is entirely baseless."

    This is the exact quotation from Embree: "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire. Fifty-eight people died. The official account declares, without proof, that the attack was a premeditated, well-planned attack by people under direct orders from Pakistan." There is no other mention of the train burning in that source. Even if Embree did mention something like that, I don't see why we need a sentence mentioning his opinion in a summary section, ignoring others.

• Your understanding of WP:PRIMARY is flawed: linking to original reports to support their conclusion isn't wrong, and in many cases, better. In this case, for example, Martha Nussbaum mentions only the cooking stoves, but the original reports mention them as one of the several possible causes: the Hazards Centre report suggests 5 different possible causes, and stove is last one. WP:PRIMARY is applicable when you cite a report to support its interpretation or state one of its assertions as a fact.
  • This is OK: "The Nanavati report states abc ..."<ref>Nanavati report</ref>
  • This is not OK: "The Nanavati report is based on credible witness accounts..."<ref>Nanavati report</ref>
  • This is not OK: "It has been proved beyond doubt that the train was burnt by a mob."<ref>Nanavati report</ref>
  • This is not OK unless secondary sources indicate that the Godhra Victims Association is notable: "Godhra Victims Association report concluded that..."<ref>Godhra Victims Association</ref>
• I retained all the academic sources except Jafferlot, which was used to cite a statement about Tehelka recording speaking about a person who thinks Nanavati could be bribed etc. Just because something is mentioned in a book by a European academic doesn't mean it is scholarly. The statement is still a wild allegation, and including it in a summary section is undue weight, if not blatant POV-pushing. Using Jafferlot (who cites Tehelka), instead of directly citing Tehelka, doesn't make Pandya's statement academically sourced content.

  By the way, the "academic" sources don't seem to have been included in your version as part of a well-thought research: it just seems that someone wrote the content, then performed a Google Books search to support that content, including whatever was available for free preview as a citation. I have checked only Nussbaum and Embree, and neither of them supported the text in your version. I suspect the same might be true for the other books cited as sources.

utcursch | talk 16:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The Concerned Citizens report does clearly support the "fire started inside the train" theory, and it does not mention the pelting of stones and is highly suspicious of claims about a Muslim mob having formed all together. I do agree that it has a pov slant, that needs to be weeded out by more neutral wordings. Also, note that linking to a primary source is fine, but it cannot be used to support a specific interpretation of that primary source. Jaffrelot should be included, his using the Pandya interview shows that it is notable and has been accepted by scholars as casting doubt on the objectivity of the Nanavati commision.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

CCT report does mention stone throwing (2.2). That wasn't my point, though: I was referring to the other two reports that the article mentions.

As for Pandya, note that I also removed the bit about the Banerjee Commission being declared unconstitutional/illegal. Such details might deserve a mention in the Godhra train burning article, but I don't see why we need them in a summary section in this article', esp. when the sentence is framed in a way that implies Nanavati was bribed. utcursch | talk 18:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You have a point there. It should basically be a brief summary of the different views of the events, not an exhaustive treatment.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am going to restore Jafferlot as it is not a "wild allegation" the guy was recorded saying it. I will also restore Embree: as "A gang at Godhra station attacked the train and set carriages on fire. Fifty-eight people died. The official account declares, without proof, that the attack was a premeditated, well-planned attack by people under direct orders from Pakistan." Being paraphrased as "entirely baseless" rather than "without proof" is perfectly acceptable. In fact I have a good mind to revert to the last decent version. Given what is currently there needs sources, uses two primary sources. There is OR, as in "accident theory", and why is accident in scare quotes but "conspiracy" is not? This line "Both the reports concluded that the fire was most likely caused by an accident, but also agreed that the coach was indeed stoned by an angry mob" sourced to an opinion piece and used for a statement of fact. Give me one good reason not to revert these changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

Folks, please don't edit war on this article. If you believe that the sources being used here are one sided, then the solution is not to remove that reliably sourced content but rather to provide other reliable sources that provide other viewpoints. Since the incident happened 11 years ago, and is a reasonably well studied one, I suggest a greater reliance on academic sources would be helpful. --regentspark (comment) 16:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reason

User:Maunus, Please provide the reason for your revert, [7]. The source uses an unpublished paper.-sarvajna (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The source cites an expert in his field, and is perfectly reliable. How about you stop removing well sourced content? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? an unpublished paper becomes reliable because you want that? -sarvajna (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a paper by an expert in the field which was obviously good enough for a reliable secondary source to cite it, as such so can we. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

We need to use our common sense in certain cases, anything that is published or available on google books need not be included, the paper is unpublished, I do not know the reasons though.-sarvajna (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that we cite a reliable source which mentions how many investigations there has been into an incident. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It is common sense that an expert in the field is able to count how many inquiries have happened. It is trivial information so unless you have a source by a more reliable authority that contradicts it excluding it is unwarranted.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• The only reason for including anything and utterly anything published by someone is that we assume it has been peer reviewed. The publishing process is considered as the test for the content's notability and validity. Unpublished nature of the paper is interpreted as it meets none. Get a better reference or even better, get at least 50 such names of investigations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Take it to the RSN board if you think a book from OUP is no better than a blog. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Request move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2002 Gujarat violence → 2002 Anti-Muslim violence – Just about every single source describes this incident is an instance of anti-Muslim violence, the article title needs to reflect that. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are a consensus among academics that this was a deliberate instance of anti-Muslim violence, source The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future Harvard University Press. pp. 50–51 "There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law"

Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India Princeton University Press. The Blackwell City Reader p141 Wiley. India: government and politics in a developing nation p74 Cengage. India briefing: takeoff at last? p5 M E Sharpe. The State of India's Democracy p184 The Johns Hopkins University Press. Technology and Nationalism in India: Cultural Negotiations from Colonialism to Cyberspace p5 Cambria. Perspectives on Modern South Asia: A Reader in Culture, History, and Representation p24 Wiley. Islam in South Asia in Practice p31 Princeton University Press. After Secular Law p281 Stanford University Press. Social Movements In India: Poverty, Power, And Politics p62 Rowman & Littlefield. all call this an instance of Anti-Muslim violence/pogrom/genocide Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Oppose I don't think that that quote justifies the move, and I also don't think that that is in anyway the most common usage used to describe the events. I also think that it is problematic because it downplays the importance of the minority of Hindus who died in the violence. Even though I agree that there is a consensus that the Gujarat events were premeditated and directed against Muslims, I don't think that means that this is the more common usage in referring to the events. I think that most studies consider the Gujarat violence as part of an Indian tradition of communalist violence that tends to disproportionately affect minority groups, but which is not exclusive to any of them. I think if this article is going to be moved anywhere it will require a much more impressive lineup of sources to establish what really is the more common way to refer to the events. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Maunus: as you know I have been doing a great deal of work on bringing this article up to scratch, and just about every source I have looked at, from academic to media say this was an instance of anti-Muslim violence, now I could post literally hundreds of them but the ones in the content I added ought to suffice, all one needs do is look at the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the sources say that it was an instance of anti-Muslim violence, but they do not call it "the 2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat". User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The suggested title is 2002 anti-Muslim violence, not "2002 anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat" because as you say, the sources say this was an instance of anti-Muslim violence and the title ought to reflect that per WP:NDESC "Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. " Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That makes even less sense because there were obviously other instances of anti-Muslim violence in the world in 2002. There is no bass in naming policy for this move that I can see.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Far too generic. Anti-Muslim violence where? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UCN. Not for us to be making judgements. --regentspark (comment) 15:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Common name. Seriously, this IS bordering on tendentious! Shovon (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Óppose per WP:UCN. Also the violence was not only directed against Muslims, unless the article's scope is limited to a subset of these events, the name should not be changed. - Aurorion (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose "the riots resulted in the deaths of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus" Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Just about every single source describes this incident is an instance of anti-Muslim violence" That's because you have picked and added them such. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The Godhra incident was also a act of violence and comes under the scope of this article. Even the post riots resulted in many Hindus getting died. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible linkvio

The source used in this edit has obviously copy and pasted large chunks of the HRW report and has not attributed it that I see in their article, is this a linkvio? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Rather, it looks like the reverse. I went through the HRW PDF [8] and was unable to find such lines (I searched with Combing,power lines, chain). Then, I went to the HRW site and found out that this PDF was posted on April 30[9]. But India Today had published it at April 15[10]. - Vatsan34 (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not thought to be!

This article has this line in the first paragraph: The attack on 27 February 2002 on a train, thought by most to have been carried out by Muslims, .... with some commentators calling the violence an act of retaliation. When I tried to change the sentence in bold to carried out by Muslims, the edit was reverted stating that books are the major source and is treated better than newspapers, when I tried to quote this. So, I tried to go through the source [book] mentioned next to the line and searched for the Gujarat riots. In Hakeem, Farrukh B.; Maria R. Haberfeld, Arvind Verma (2012). Policing Muslim Communities: Comparative and International Context. Springer. p. 81, all I could find is this An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims travelling in a train and burning of coach in Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off.... The source had mentioned that it was An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims and the newspaper that I had linked above says the same. Can we change the sentence to carried out by Muslims now? - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

err, no? Because there are many other sources that cast doubt on that claim.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Like this one [11]? Maybe, BBC is not a valid source? - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Any updated claims to support that? Shovon (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So you mean to say Newspapers, Court judgements and Commission findings are not credible compared to books written? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Even the particular academic source clearly says that, "An attack by Muslims on Hindu pilgrims traveling in a train and burning of a coach at Godhra that killed 50 Hindus set off a major retaliation inwhich almost 2,000 Muslims were killed (Sinha 2010)." Clearly it was misrepresented in the article earlier. Shovon (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If people move shit around do not blame me, there are more that enough sources which say this, I will go through the history, again, and restore the correct source. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that the particular source wasn't introduced by you? Shovon (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the sources or put it up here for discussion. There are a lot of differences between alleged and did. When it was obvious from the court judgement to photos and enquiries, why depend on a book authored by an author as an authentic source? If the commission or media is biased towards Muslims, then those authors also can be! So, how much GigaByte of proof is needed to say that the train that burnt and the lives that were lost was not just an accident? - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The court judgment does not matter at all per our policies, this has been discussed to death and beyond. Shovan I have no idea, all I know is when I introduce content it is A in the source, and B the source is usually an academic one. Like I said, I will check to see were the error occurred. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If so, please show me the policy page, which underlines that court judgment does not matter. If court judgement does not matter, what about this section 2002_Gujarat_violence#Criminal_prosecutions, which talks only about Court judgment. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be NPOV. We do not discount sources because a court has an opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Here goes another source: In A Time of Coalitions: Divided We Stand By Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Shankar Raghuraman Pg.32, it is mentioned The orgy of violence began in the early hours of February 27,2002 when kar sevaks...travelling on the Sabarmati Express were torched to death by a Muslim mob near an obscure railway station called Godhra. Not thought to be! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

All you are doing is proving that "widely believed to be" is accurate. Question, how is the way it is currently written not neutral? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article presents "widely believed to be" data instead of accurate data. A simple read can say it lacks NPOV. I bet even the people who were in Gujarat(non-Hindus) during the riots might find this article provocative rather than informative. A read on the pages of the books mentioned in the sources reveal that those authors depend on hear-say and rumors to describe incident. Many of the authors do not know much thing about past of Gujarat and rely on other authors, who in turn had believed accounts of two or more people in Gujarat. Those authors had their POV mixed with person representing it. A Hindu Nationalist will downplay the riots, while a hardcore Muslim might magnify it, but Wikipedia needs to provide NPOV. Upon reading the WP:IRS, it did not mentioned the order in which a source should be used. It had mentioned that a newspaper article written by an expert or a newspaper article written as describing news instead of mixing the writer's view can be considered as reliable source. Newspapers generally carry the events as it happened, while books written by foreigners can be easily spinned, as those authors can be easily given false info! That is what Tourist Guides usually do to earn a lot!(winks) - Vatsan34 (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sources written by respectable academics and hsitorians significantly after the fact are always better references than newspaper articles written in the heat of the moment. The former are the product of extensive research and a significant vetting process by the editorial teams. The latter are written extremely quickly, based on any available information (which may be later contradicted or retracted or found to be incomplete). In every case on Wikipedia, we should always always always strive to use sources written by experts significantly after the fact. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! I wish someone had told me such a precise reply. I agree to this. But what I want is people to show me a valid source which says thought to be. Lets weigh the number of sources that say they did and number of sources that say many thought they did. If the majority of sources claim latter, then let the article stay as it is. Or else, I would request a change in it! - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We do not need a source which says exactly that, the lede is an overview of the article, there are sources in the article which dispute the official narrative, such as A Concise History of Modern India A Companion to the Anthropology of India So the lede is accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Wow. So, a fiction novel has now become a reliable source. Sinha, Tuhin A (2010). "Chaitali". Of Love and Politics. Hachette. [12]. I think I might get more surprises here in this article. The book does not have single word called Gujarat or Godhra. - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There are several sources in the book that consider the claim that the violence was incited by a Muslim attack to be specious, considering it instead to be the general consensus that the attacks were preplanned and that the Godhra incident was likely staged to frame Muslims: such sources include Paul Brass, Martha Nussbaum, Christophe Jaffrelot, the citizens for justice and peace report, and several others. We can not present the "Muslim mob" theory as fact while such prominent scholars contradict it. We can of course note that a number of muslims were convicted for it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Logically explain why sources by Jaffrelot, et al that predate the findings of the court case are legitimate criticism of the findings of the court case in question. By the way, DS, looks there is no such consensus to accept using Brass 2002 to argue against a 2011 case. There are numerous academic sources (which unsurprisingly were deleted in your reverts) that accept the court findings, and are from after the case. As has been noted ad nauseam, the CJP report is unreliable (and from Teesta, an accused perjurer).Pectore^talk 00:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would highly recommend you stop accusing Teesta of perjury, it is a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Being discussed at NPOVN

See WP:NPOVN#2002 Gujarat riots. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody ready to discuss?? Seems, you guys look at people who challenge your POV as someone who needs to be eliminated from Wikipedia, like accusing them as Sockpuppets? (hehehe) - Vatsan34 (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Validity of the Sources

Let us discuss the validity of the sources, as there is a strong bias in the sources provided in this article. I will restrict myself in adding the validity of sources under this particular topic, instead of creating several new topics. To start with, this book Campbell, John (2012). Chris Seiple, Dennis Hoover, Dennis R. Hoover, Pauletta Otis, ed. The Routledge Handbook of Religion and Security. Routledge. p. 233. was credited in the second paragraph to vouch the line Other sources estimate that up to 2000 Muslims died. Now, a peek into the book shows that the author had mentioned the happening of Sabarmati train burning as 1993 and not 2002. A printing mistake maybe, but the number 2000 is not such it seems. Here goes the line - On February 27,1993, a train bringing supporters of RSS and VHP was on its way back to Gujarat from Ayodhya,where the travelers had attended a ceremony celebrating the destruction of Babri Masjid. Again, it was not celebration of destruction. The destruction day was Dec 6 and they were returning on Feb 27. The nearest event on Ayodhya that time was the Purna Ahuti Yagya [13], which started on Feb 18, 2002. I think the validity of the source needs to be rechecked. Whether this book a direct ground report of the happenings or a copy-of-the-copy-of-the-copy of a publication, is yet to be found out! - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have issues with reading? The source say, "Two events in 1992 and 2002" you cannot discount a source over a typo. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not. What if it was not a typo? If you could credit a source for 2000 killed, then I can use that very same source to claim in this article that the Godhra train burning took place on 1993 and not in 2002. Other sources might be wrong, but Routledge can never be.(winks) - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

What exactly does "validity of the source" mean? Is it's reliability being challenged per WP:IRS? It's a Routledge publication, and they're a very highly respected publisher. If the issue really is just a typo, then it actually seems like a non-issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

If a source cites the event happening itself nine years back, will you still consider that source as credible? Imagine your history books placing US Independece to 1756 or First World War to 1905? Is this a Bible to take verses that suits and discard the rest? (chuckles) - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense wikilawyering as usual, trying to find whatever reason possible to discount academic sources because they don't tend to support the BJP narrative.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't be a Racist. By stereotyping me as follower of BJP and as Hindu based on my name, you are in-fact making a racist comment! (playing victim) .. Jokes apart, this article does not have NPOV but MPOV(Muslim Point of View) and as a Wikipedian, I am committed to highlight the discrepancies and false stuffs in the article. I did not come here to prove that India is holy place or Modi is innocent or Muslims were not killed. - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not stereotyping you, I am observing the actions of a group of editors who clearly are only here to intoduce as much of the BJP narrative as possible and do so in spite of wikipolicies about sourcing. You are doing the same, I don't care why, but you are. I have no knowledge of your race or religion, but your actions are visible to all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Everyone's action is visible to all in Wikipedia. I do not belong to any race or religion and I had mentioned playing victim, so I felt you would had got the sarcasm. I find it funny that looking onto the sources here, you guys are still focused on approving one line from it which suits your POV, while not allowing another line from the same sources because it is against your POV! - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it has a Muslim POV, given I wrote most of the existing content. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that meant to convey a point? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's approval, as even though what you said is true it also came off as kind of funny in its presentation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit protect

Please revert to this version per WP:DENY. that IP is an obvious sock. The article has also had shitloads of content removed and redlinks introduced. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No opposition to this request, so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manaaf (talk • contribs) 14:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC) 

Copyright violation removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

CN tag

Why? What part of <ref name="Shani 2007 b"/> do you not get? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert, why

Not sure were all the was copied & pasted from, but this also termed as the Gujarat pogrom by the muslim extremists is a BLP vio, as none of those academics are "muslim extremists" Darkness Shines (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

When the court verdict says that Godhra train burning was planned incident and 31 of the muslim extremists were punished you cannot say that the Gujrat violence was pogrom. That is extremist view so the author can be considered muslim extremist. You are also trying to remove the properly cited contents to make the article one sided. This is the act of vandalism.

Read WP:INDENT. Sign your posts with four ~ and read WP:BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

You may remove the word but you should not remove other properly cited contents

Actually I can, and probably will, most of it has no place here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Citation request in Post Godhra violence section

A statement in the section is as follows: It is common knowledge in India that these strikes are usually followed by violence .Irfannaseefp (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a nonsense statement. There are hundreds of strikes and "bandhs" in India. Further the statement: "Modi declared that the attack on the train had been carried out by "terrorists", these words were interpreted as a signal to take vengeance on the Muslim community." Interpreted by whom? Very speculative. Leaders call attack acts of terror all the time, who is that interpreted to take vengeance? This is a serious leap. 38.104.206.50 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent additions

Are not an improvement and are more or less duplications of content already on the article. Please stop with the duplications. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

All details added were not found anywhere either by same words or by same meaning also the article is incomplete, the effort is required to complete the sub-section Godhara train Burning and that must be added. Kswarrior (talk) KLS 06:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about? All of that is in the article already, you are just duplicating content, and edit warring over it as well, just stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

False interpretation/representation of facts

The following lines in article However the troop deployment was withheld by the state until the most severe aspects of the violence had ended, and it was not until 1 March that contingents of troops began to be deployed to help put down the violence seems contradictory or rathar false allegation since the article says troops were airlifted on 1st March. !!!! So it was airlifted on 1st March and deployed also on 1st March - isn't it??Jethwarp (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they were held back and not deployed on the ground if memory serves, I will have to recheck the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, according to the source the troops were held in check after arriving in the state and not deployed for 36 hours, which was on 1 March. I cannot see the source used by the authors cited for the claim in preview though. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

misinterpretation of facts

in this article, you have mistakenly written that some events occurred on 28th february, after which it has been said that two days later, on the 1st of march. I would like to inform you that there are only 28 days in february, and the 1st of march was the next day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.75.82 (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Distortion of Facts : The entire section "Godhra train burning" forgets to mention that initial attack on the train is a proven fact and 31 persons have been convicted for arson by the court, and this section tries to show that there was no arson on 27th Feb and the fire was an accident. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning mentions these facts more clearly, but the current article mentions planned arson and attack on the train only briefly in the introduction, and later diverts the issue in a prejudiced manner.VJha (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As perWP:NPOV, we cannot say that the attack is "proven fact," only that the court found it to be so. Saying it was proven would be giving the Nanavati-Shah commission undue weight with respect to the other investigations. That being said, the attack is not in dispute, but the arson is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If a court of law does not prove a legal dispute, then who can ? Perhaps you are confusing "court" with "Nanavati-Shah commission". The latter was not a court but merely a commission constituted by Gujarat govt whose findings were refused by many. But I have cited three sources without any bias which is not undue : (1) Nanavati-Shah commission report, (2) Railway Minister's commission report, and then (3) court verdict in 2011. I do not support or oppose the court verdict, but to omit the court verdict from this article is against WP:NPOV. I cannot understand why some persons want a censorship on court verdict! Why a court verdict cannot be referenced here? Suppose the Supreme Court reverts the present court verdict, would you refuse that too ? VJha (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oi, you need to cool it a little. I did not say the court verdict should not be present: that would be ridiculous. I am saying it should be presented as "The court found...." and not "It is proven fact that...." which is as per WP:NPOV. Is that clearer?

My sentence is : "in 2011, the court verdict convicted 31 persons for attacks, arson and stoning on the passengers". I gave the link through which details of verdict can be accessed. Hence WP:NPOV cannot be cited here. VJha (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be an appropriate version; the question is now of grammar, and of where it should be inserted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I just noticed that while the lede mentions that Modi was accused and then cleared of complicity, it does not mention the fact that members of his government, specifically Maya Kodnani, were later convicted. I plan to modify this; any suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

See also

Why is mentioning links to other Gujarat violence a wrong thing in this place? Why was my edit of 1985 riots removed? thevikas (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent removal

@Vikas; I noticed that you added a link to the 1985 riots (which is fine by me) but you also removed 4kb of sourced content from above. I am assuming this was an accident; if not, could you please explain why? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Varadarajan

This unknown reporter named Varadarajan is given unnecessary importance in this page.Whatever his reports suggest is not supported by ndtv zee news timesofindia ibnlive . Lets write the sections , ATTACK ON HINDUS and ATTACK ON MUSLIMS without any reference from Varadarajan--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 09:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hardly unknown, the person has an article after all. And he is cited only twice, so how exactly is this giving him "unnecessary importance"? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

He may have been sited twice .but its very sensitive things and whatever mentioned is never supported by any other news channels. This Vardarajan's claims are neve supported by any other person.No media, no ngo,no human rights activists . Unless he is given importance by any other important person or agency it would be better to avoid his violent claims. Any body can write a book without proper investigation or for publicity stuntDarkness Shines (talk)112.79.37.152 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

The reason are obvious. Massive removal of content, restoration of a version which has no consensus and which violates more policies than one can shake a stick at. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

useless administrator darknessshines

administrators are not supporting my views even though they come from reliable sources especially this darknessshines...as his name suggest he wants to keep everyone in dark. Lets hope other administrators will understand that darknesshines is an ISI agent. [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you further edit Wikipedia. Thanks, 117.194.213.232 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

So you do not deny that you are an ISI agent! ;) 216.96.233.118 (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Largely one sided and biased article

The article seems to have been biased and extensively cites books and articles strongly favoring one side of the opinion while largely ignoring the other side. The editors of this article have chosen to ignore the facts upon which the courts have pronounced their judgements, a problem which the entire article suffers.

The section on the train burning incident is largely one sided and written like an advertisement for the defendants of the subsequent court case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclaren9 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I have fought a long battle here and I was cornered by the anti-Indian editors here that I am sock-puppet. Imagine, how a Neutral Wikipedia editor like me will feel. I nearly lost my energy in touching this article henceforth. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there was a right-wing Government in Gujarat when the riots took place. The human rights organisations accused that the Government was complicit in the riots and those accusations have stuck. They have been widely distributed and repeatedly reused in the academic literature. Only after submissions have been made to the Nanavati Commission and the Special Investigation Team of the Supreme Court of India that we realize that many of these accusations were rumours, fabrications and unfounded allegations that cannot stand up to judicial scrutiny. However, these allegations are out there in the literature and Wikipedia dutifully reports them. The people interested in balance need to go and find other sources (preferably academic sources) that provide alternative descriptions of the happenings and add them here. That is the only way to achieve balance. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The "problem" here is that people conflate "complicity of the government" with "complicity of Narendra Modi." The complicity of the government, or at any rate members of the government, is rather non-controversial at this point; Maya Kodnani was convicted, for god's sake, and her guilt was acknowledged by Modi's government. Modi's own complicity has been alleged, but never proven in a court of law. Wikipedia policy says that academia is given more weight than court rulings; therefore, the article reflects this. If you are unhappy with this policy, take it up with Jimbo; don't complain about it here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I didn't complain; I was making a constructive suggestion. I am not sure which "people" you mean conflate the complicity of the government with complicity of Narendra Modi. If you mean the authors cited on WP, I agree. I believe WP should be more discerning, and I believe it should cite authors who are discerning. That is not the case at the moment. For instance, the article says at this time that the US State Department has alleged that "Modi" has revised textbooks. Did it? Did he? I have no idea. Cleaning up this article seems like a humongous task. Martha Nussbaum says, "Because evidence of his criminal activity is so overwhelming, he has been denied a visa to enter the United States". I haven't seen the US State Department say anything about any "criminal activity" of Modi. It cites the Indian Human Rights Commission, which talks about failure of the "government," not of Modi. As you know, I have objected to Nussbaum being used as a source. I find her writing on this subject to be of poor quality. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Peace. My comment was directed less at you and more at the general body of users that periodically make comments here about how the article has a anti-Modi bias, or something along those lines. I still stand by what I was saying, though, in that any "bias" in this article is a product of the policy on sourcing, which gives more weight to academic sources. You appear to appreciate this, which is good. This is not to say that the article is perfect, but in terms of neutrality, I believe it reflects academic consensus fairly accurately, and this is especially true of the train incident section. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The academic consensus is changing and will continue to change. Now that Modi is the Prime Minister and the world paying attention, the academic writing will come under much closer scrutiny and they can't get away with using Modi as their favorite punching bag. The Nanavati Commission report, due to come out any time now, should also give us a much better handle on the facts. Uday Reddy (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Academic consensus on Modi as an administrator may be changing; I see no evidence of academic consensus on this particular incident changing very much. The shift seems to be around how much this incident defines Modi. Regardless, that is somewhat speculative on my part; you seem to agree that it reflects current academic consensus, so let it rest. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

hmm... Long story. I was banned when I protested replacement of whole article by just one editor. It is so disgusting story, I was harassed to such an extent that I left this article. Abhi (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Biased Article

Article is highly biased and tone is Anti BJP. e.g. "Chief Minister Narendra Modi has been accused of initiating and condoning the violence, as have police and government officials who allegedly directed the rioters and gave lists of Muslim-owned properties to them.[12] In 2012, Modi was cleared of complicity in the violence by a Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India." In July 2013 allegations were made that the SIT had suppressed evidence.[14] On 26 December 2013, an Indian court upheld the earlier SIT report and rejected a petition seeking prosecution of Mr. Modi.

This should be part of Inquiry and not main section, if required.

Again section

Modi and Rana had used inflammatory language which could worsen the situation.[49]

Mostly reference is given as some book specially from foreign author which is not solid evidence as newspaper. All such sentences should be removed/rephrased and article need to be wikified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshdeomurari (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The sources are fine, academic ones are better then newspapers. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

These people are clearly racist. They consider Indians as no-brainers and consider Hindu names as bigotry and need to be avoided. I say it, straight from my brain here. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Vatsan34:Sorry, who is "clearly racist"? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Those who had claimed Indian editors as pro-BJP, pro-Hindu. For Anyone's Info, I consider myself as irreligious and have no sympathy for any religion. As a logical thinker, I found too many lapse from neutrality in this article from my past interactions here. I still stand by it. This article is written purely in Muslim side. And this is not blind accusation. -Vatsan34 (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but who here has claimed that "Indian editors as pro-BJP, pro-Hindu." are what? Your statement makes little sense. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It was claimed here that all Indian editors try to insert pro-BJP material into the article. I am not at all related to BJP, nor does my political affiliation forces me to edit this article. I once again affirm that I wanted to make this article NPOV, which this article totally lacks. Respected Sir, Please correct me If I had not followed any WikiPolicy in this statement - Vatsan34 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Biased article

I request administrators to read the links of sources given below in order to come to a conclusion.The current version of this page is heavily biased in favour of a particular community.

[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] I have added few extra links.Rest are same as the previous ones. and darknessshines don't remove this section. --ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would I remove a section? I have however removed some linkvios and one BLPPRIMARY violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This link was part of the article in old version.there were others also which was removed.The attack on hindus section is biased as can be seen through my links.But some bad faith editor removed this http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/postgodhra-riots-dna-test-nails-4-killers/4719/0 ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no purpose in discussing anything with you, given you are about to be blocked for sockpuppetry. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think most of the above links come from RS. But are these references already part of this article? I didn't check the page112.79.38.174 (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) You don't want to discuss with me , I have no problem with that.But you must give some reason why the above references from reliable sources can't be included in this topic--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

How to find Sockpuppet the User:Darkness Shines way? Anybody trying to bring neutral point of view to this article is a sockpuppet. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

He is currently blocked for socking, so keep your pointless allegations to yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a pointed allegation. I had mentioned it in point. wink wink -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Vatsan34, i think you are right. if the opinion is free opinion and not in favor of some people then they start to make point of sock in order to prevent your opinion from coming to the surface. This article is biased. 112.133.203.148 (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Sock on a proxy, now blocked Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As DS pointed out, the user in question has in fact been blocked for sockpuppetry, and so your accusations are completely off the mark. I suggest both you confine yourself to content based arguments henceforth. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not. I had been accused for Sockpuppetry based on evidences as strong as a bird's feather. I felt offended , but I conveyed it here in a funny manner. -Vatsan34 (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@ Vatsan; I was referring to the IP, who was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry. I said that the lesson to be learned there, was to confine the conversation to content. I did not make any accusations about you. Is that clear? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention of religion

Either do not mention the religion of attackers and victims, Or mention them both. It is mentioned only when the victim is Muslim and attacker is Hindu, while it is not mentioned when the attacker is Muslim and victim is Hindu. Take, for example, in Godhra train burning section, it is mentioned 'a mob of 1000 people'. Almost all press reports (no, not even single newspaper in India is pro-BJP or pro-Hindu, so just relax) point to the direction of Muslim mob burning the train. Coming to the books being more reliable than newspaper, How can foreigner know about what happened in India? What kind of people he had interviewed? Will the investigation by Special Investigation Team be lesser accurate than investigation by a nobody knows Foreign author?? I have doubts on the accuracy of the facts mentioned in the books sourced here. So, let me just say it here and then raise it in the reliable sources section. Thanks! - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you here, the clean chit and whatnot is already mentioned in the lede, why add it again? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood it. Those are the recent developments in the case and I am sure it is related to the article. -Vatsan34 (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Any possibility of including an infobox at the top right? I think "Infobox civil conflict" will be of good use. Can provide a statistical brief data about the riots. - Vatsan34 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No, what is the point? Anything added to it will be disputed by another source, that is why the infobox was removed to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disputed by another source is the backbone of Wikipedia. Only when we give room for all reliable sources, we can achieve a Neutral article. Books and Newspapers may contradict each other, but both are reliable in its own way. Both goes through scrutiny of its publishers. Let us not decide what is best, let us decide what can be added to show all sides of a particular topic. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

DS, for once I have to disagree with you, I believe a carefully monitored civil conflict box may be useful. We can leave out any and all information about perpetrators, and so forth, stick to casualties, damages, timeline, locations, and such....what do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Which casualty figures? There are several, Damages? There were thousands of structures destroyed or damaged, which ones do we add? All information about perpetrators? That is in the thousands, who do we pick out for special treatment in an infobox? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, okay, that's fair. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Articles as complex as Syrian Civil War has infobox. See its size and contents even. Casualty figures mentioned by Indian (non-BJP) Government is there. Structural damages are not there in Civil Conflict infobox, for I myself had added it for similar riots articles. - Vatsan34 (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. A majority of !voters opposed the move, but the only evidence presented showed that the WP:COMMONNAME is overwhelmingly 2002 Gujarat riots. The opposers preferred to substitute their own judgement of what the events should be called, which is not how article titling works except where there are WP:NPOV issues. In this case there were NPOV arguments on both sides, both unsupported by any sources, so have I discount those in weighing the discussion as a WP:CONSENSUS to move. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

---

2002 Gujarat violence → 2002 Gujarat riots – This article essentially covers the period of rioting that followed the Godhra train burning. Reviewing news sources covering the event shows the large majority of these sources refer to the period as the "2002 Gujarat riots"; thus, in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, I propose this page be moved to "2002 Gujarat riots". Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC) NickCT (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This was a deliberate attack against a minority community, violence is the correct term, will support a move to Anti Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, which is backed by RS Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the references given here[45] still you are not changing the Attack on Hindus section.254 Hindus got killed but still this is anti Muslim pogrom.You are very clever and experienced.The editors should not have any bias towards any community or religion. Previously I had to face LX in Total Siyapaa who was neglecting my reliable sources and now I have to face you. You have got lots of medals for anti-vandalism.I don't know how you got support from administrators--ZORDANLIGHTER (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose "Riots" suggests that they were spontaneous; sources say the violence was anything but. "Violence" is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support It is spontaneous, not pre-planned. So definitely not a pogrom or even violence. Gujarat riots will be perfect title. Indian media (not pro-BJP) use this word. - Vatsan34 (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Vanamonde95.—indopug (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:UNDUE to Martha Nussbaum in lead

There are many authors who commented on the issue. Though her views are noteworthy, why should the views of one author be highlighted in the lead? We have already said it was ethnic cleansing (" Still others have said the incidents were tantamount to ethnic cleansing"), premeditated ("Some commentators, however, hold the view that the attacks had been pre-planned, were well orchestrated, and that the attack on the train was a "staged trigger" for what was actually premeditated violence"), the complicity of the state government and officers of the law ("called it an instance of state terrorism."). What new idea does the quote add? The quote just repeats what the lead has already said. Martha Nussbaum is not the ultimate authority on the subject and there are hundreds of scholars who have commented on the issue. Why does Nussbaum get the privilege to be in the lead over all the others? The only two other people linked to, in the lead are Modi and Teesta who are part of the event. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The source is exemplary: A scholar published under a prestigious academic press. And in fact the quote does add something significant, Nussbaum is not giving us her opinion on the issue. She is stating that there is a "broad consensus" on the nature of the events. In Wikipedia we are obliged to WP:Weight articles according to the prominence of different views in RS. Our policy also tells us that academic, peer reviewed sources are the highest quality sources to use. If a high quality academic source tells us that there is a "broad consensus" on a topic, that is certainly something that is notable and important. Also if you read WP:RS/AC, it tells us that statements regarding consensus on a topic "must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." The current statement in the lead is sourced appropriately in line with policy, while your approach ("There are many authors who commented on the issue") seems to be based on your own opinions/assessments - something our policy tells us directly to avoid. Dlv999 (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dlv999. Nussbaum's quote establishes that in academia, which is what Wikipedia is primarily based on, there is little debate about the nature of the violence that took place in Gujarat in 2002.—indopug (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nussbaum summarizes the view of the hundreds of academics who have written about the matter - which is why that particular quote is significant and notable. Nussbaums personal opinion is not notable, but the consensus of academics is, and that is what the quote establishes. It is not undue. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Redtigerxyz.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not directly related to the topic of the lede. But there is a very good book review of Nussbaum's book in India Review, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 73-90 (which might require subscription for access.) A couple of quotes from there:

• "In some respects, the largest ego in this book is Nussbaum’s own."
• "Nussbaum’s editors at Belknap/Harvard University Press have applied a fairly light touch, and the book comes across almost as a star vehicle for its author."
• "What makes her stylistic choices here so disappointing is not just that they are beneath commonly held standards of professional scholarship, but that they fall short of the standards of conduct that Nussbaum herself sets for India and America."

I am reading it, if only because I know that it will be standard reading for every American politician for the next 20 years. It is kind of a like a freshman undergraduate text, quite entertaining, and often comical. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Please rate this article not for children to read on 25 April 2014

Very Biased Article. If you choose to give numbers and the brutal way in which people were killed please give the true facts on both sides. I don't think you personally done any of the research except search the web and every link to the sources is by a non-Hindu. please put a rating on this article. It is too violent for kids too read. I feel statements like these are there just to provoke. "Children were force fed petrol and then set on fire, pregnant women were gutted and their unborn child's body then shown to the women" Why are you polluting the next generation mind! Being a responsible human being. Do not add fuel to fire even if it mean gain to some people. 192.55.79.165 (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry! Wikipedia is not censored and we also don't have filters for adult or children suitable articles. All is open for all. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

If that is what happened or written as happened, then it shall be known to the next generation. Though I would surely say that this article it totally biased. - Vatsan34 (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I just reverted the removal of Martha Nussbaum, for a couple of reasons. First, Nussbaum is there not for the weight of her opinion, but because her book summarizes all academic opinion. Second, consensus favors keeping her in. Please see the related discussions on this talk page and also at the Godhra train burning page. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then I will ad another sourced opinion and then don't ask me to remove it. (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It does not quite work that way. I did not arbitrarily add this content just now; it has been here for a while, and has been discussed multiple times, as explained above. You are welcome to add new content, but it may be reverted, depending on what it is, as per WP:BRD. Also, you might want to read WP:INDENT as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention WP:CONSENSUS, which clearly exists (such as it may ever be) for this source; two editors besides myself supported it in the above discussion, a couple more on the Godhra train burning page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kumarila: I did not revert you, because I have done that several times already; but if you had actually read the article, you would have noticed that the same point is made higher up in the lead, with the exception of the "supervised by" bit, which is untrue. If you do not want to look silly, you should self-revert. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kumarila:What do you think you are doing? Are you aware of what "complicity" means? Every point you make with that addition has been covered above, and the place for details is certainly not the lead. Discuss it on the talk before you make additions like that; you know very well how sensitive a topic this is. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: U r just showing tour bias. The final line just provides a balance. Remove the final line and the whole paragraph shows that there is consensus that state Govt. was involved and did nothing. Also, statement by Matha Nabassum is unwarranted. Who decided that there is consensus on that ? My line talks about state not Modi. Kumarila (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. Half the second paragraph is devoted to saying the State was innocent of anything. And do not bring up Nussbaum again; I already asked you to read the talk both here and at Godhra train burning, which you are not doing. Also, you might want to look at I didn't hear that; what you are doing with respect to Nussbaum is exactly that. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not intend to revert you once again, but if you continue to insert that content, you are liable to get reported by somebody else, and then blocked. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is awful and needs serious work

This article needs a serious split into a factual summary and a commentary. What we have now is a horribly biased factual depiction of violence, throwing opinion and commentary into every bit of history. I'm also skeptical of an article that cites only print sources inaccessible to the general public. I have to take it at your word that these books do say what you claim they do, as there are no quotations given, only broad cites. If I can get any backing on this, I will begin a large edit job, keeping in tact as much of the commentary as I can. I see this ultimately breaking into three parts: (1) Facts (2) Anti-Hindu Commentary (3) Commentary defending Hindus. Obviously, much work has been done here on (2), but (1) and (3) are pretty much nil.The-Postman (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The article is supported by high quality academic sources (scholars published in peer reviewed journals or under academic imprint). If, as you say, you have been unable to read the academic literature on the topic it is difficult to see how you can make an informed judgement as to how consistent our article is with the literature. I also see that you only have 100 edits total as a Wikipedia editor. Some of your comments suggest you are not familiar with Wikipedia policies. For instance, your idea about breaking the article into sections based solely on POV is specifically discouraged in WP:NPOV - one of our core policies.

In your recent edit, you deleted the text which discussed the state wide bandh claiming that it was unreferenced: "even though these have been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and illegal. It is common knowledge in India that these strikes are usually followed by violence"

I checked the source and it fully supports the statement you deleted: "It had become common knowledge in India that bandh days brought riots in their wake. On this occasion, the violence started on the evening of the Godhra event, making it evident that it would continue the next day. Despite the Indian Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling that the call for a bandh is ‘unconstitutional and illegal’ and ‘violative of fundamental rights’,61 no action was taken by the government to prevent the bandh or to curb the violence."

I'm not saying the article cannot be improved but it seems to me that your judegments are not grounded in the source evidence and Wikipedia policy so, from a Wikipedia perspective at least, they do not hold much merit. Dlv999 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dlv. In addition, we are not obligated to provide balance between the different theoretical reactions which could exist with respect to this. We are obligated to reflect what reliable sources say. The broad consensus among these is that the violence was targeted at Muslim people; therefore, the article will naturally contain more material about this, which could appear "anti Hindu" to some people. There was a much lower lever of violence against Hindus, so there is some mention of this as well. You would be well served by reading WP:NPOV. NPOV does not mean symmetry. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thirded.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that "it is common knowledge that" is acceptable in Wikipedia, then you need to stop editing. Now, there are other parts of this article that use similar phrases in quoting particular sources. If you're quoting a reputable source who says this, that's not necessarily a problem. If all you're saying is "it is common knowledge that X," then this is blatant Weasel Wording. This is very simple stuff and the nuance is explained at Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Unsupported_attributions. If you're going to use phrasing like "it is common knowledge that," it needs to be in the form of a direct quote.The-Postman (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect you only have about 100 live edits in the project so I will take your suggestion for me to stop editing with a pinch of salt. It is not weasel wording because the statement is directly supported by the cited source, which is a high quality academic source. You haven't provided a scrap of evidence of any significant opinion in RS that would dispute the statement. If you provide evidence of equal quality that would dispute the statement then there is no problem attributing and including both viewpoints. However, as it stands you are deleting well sourced material that accurately represents the cited source based solely on tour own (unreferenced) personal opinions. Dlv999 (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying this MUST present some sort of pro-Hindu POV. I'm not really even saying anything here is even inaccurate. I'm saying this is a terrible article, with blatant editorializing and poor, seemingly non-native writing throughout, which is not well-organized. An ideal article is ultimately going to cite with quotations, not with broad cites, and ideally it's going to present both sides. This should be set up to allow that, even if the opposing viewpoint is going to be much thinner. Sections of this are pretty good. The intro, for example, is strong. The further into this we get, though, the worse it gets. Post-Godhra Violence, for example, is not about Post-Godhra violence. It's about Modi's involvement in the violence. The way this is set up, Modi comes first in a section in which he should occupy the bottom paragraph. Do I have any evidence that he didn't make these statements? No! But that's not the point. The point is that the section isn't about what it needs to be. The Talk page is full of similar comments about the POV here, and yet even what should be utterly non-controversial edits, such as removing blatant weasel words, are instantly reverted, along with comments about my seniority. Have I been crafting this page since its onset? No. I am an outsider reading this page for the first time and stunned that, not only does this not get close to the standards I expect, it somehow isn't even flagged. Something stinks here.The-Postman (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clear I will receive no endorsements here, so I'm charging ahead while altering as little of the content as possible. I have worked on Post-Godhra Violence to trim that down to the facts. That section was previously full of commentary regarding State Involvement, which I have moved there. That section is now much more organized as well, although there are three hanging paragraphs that don't belong there, as they, while tragic, do not relate to state violence. Other sections need similar work. The passive voice is a major offender here--I'm the FIRST person to advocate the passive voice when it makes sense, but it DOES NOT make sense here. We need to be using active subjects--WHO in the media made these statements, WHAT government entity issued the edict, etc. "It is common knowledge that," "Reports in the media stated," and "A curfew was put in place" are not acceptable here. Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9 still require major work.The-Postman (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• In fact I agree with your desire to avoid the passive voice and your argument that the phrase "it is common knowledge in India" s not a proper phrasing. But you should probably propose your changes first on the talkpage then gain consensus and then carry out the edits. That is a better approach for a controversial topic since it avoids editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming the article is perfect; like every article on "sensitive" topics, it has serious flaws. But you are serving nobody's interests if you come here with no background, and make massive changes to sourced content. Take it section by section, propose NPOV edits here, and you will find people very receptive; at least, those involved in this discussion are likely to be so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see any of my current edits as controversial. I haven't removed much, if any, content. I've simply removed the anti-Gujurat statements from the "Post-Godhra Violence" section and placed it where it belongs. I recognize that the content is here to stay, for better or worse. But we can at least keep this organized. Look at the Post-Godhra violence section as it now stands and compare it to what's below. Now the offending paragraphs are here twice, albeit cut up.The-Postman (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I support The Postman's edits. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is of low quality. I had come to this page many times over the years to learn about what happened in Gujarat riots, but went away disappointed. Now that I have read some decent materials on the riots, I have returned to see if I can make some improvements. However, I find that the senior editors are picky about every word, every phrase and every citation, and it is not easy to make any changes. That seems to be the nature of the subject. If the Nanavati Commission took 10 years to produce anything worthwhile, Wikipedia is likely to take twice as long. Good luck with your edits! You have my support. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Considering what the postman has to say, I think the best solution may be to merge the "Post Godhra," "Anti-Muslim" and "Anti-Hindu" sections, creating subsections as necessary. I agree that the "Post-Godhra" section is rather artificial; and this could deal with that. Thoughts? @Maunus:, @Dlv999:, what do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I support that change.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• support looks like it could balance out the article better for one thing. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs improvement, can you elaborate your proposal -- You want to merge three sections and create subsections as necessary? Jyoti (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting any significant content changes at this point; User:The-Postman brought up the issue of the rather contrived "Post-godhra violence" section, and I'm trying to fix that. I would merge the three sections, create subsections as needed, and remove repetitions (defined in the strictest sense.) Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Modi's Steps To Stop The Riots.

Please Add These Points To MAKE This Article More Neutral.These Are The Steps Taken By Modi To Stop The Riots.

1.On The Day Of Godhra Incident On 27 Feb Modi Alerted ALL Security Agencies To Save People. [46]

2.On 28 Feb As Soon As Modi Came To Know About VHP 'Bandh'(Closed) He Written A Fax To Central Government Asking For 4 Companies Of Anti Riot Forces And 10 Companies Of CRPF(Central Police Force).,British Paper The Telegraph Also Reported Proper Deployment Of Police And CRPF In Riot Affected Areas By Gujarat Government.

3.On The Same Day Modi Ordered Shoot At Sight Orders To Police.,

On 27 Feb Modi Appealed To People Of Gujrat For Peace.

4.On 28 Feb The Next Day Of Godhra Incident He Met Then Defence Minister Mr. George Fernandes To Discuss The Prevention Of Riots.

5.On 28 Feb Morning Modi Called Army And Given This Information On Press Release,Then Army Came Shot At Sight Killed More Than 200 Rioters And SAVED Around 5000 Muslims.,

6.Modi Repeatedly Said To Media Including Muslim Reporter Shahid Siddique That "If I Am Found Guilty Of Even 1 Charge Or Allegation Of Allowing Or Spreading Riots Then NEVER Forgive Me But Kill Me., — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.238.230 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Recent Revert

I just reverted the addition of the infobox, basically because none of the information therein is uncontested, and cannot be used without POV issues. Why the government estimates of the deaths? Why the portrayal of Hindus and Muslims as equal parties? etc. If you still feel the need for it, please discuss it here. And please note, I was until recently in favour of an infobox, until a conversation with DS brought me over. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Rjwilmsi, User:Vanamonde93 We use government count because we may not use estimates from editors. They are Parties to the civil conflict party. I think you are making your personal inferences. It just reflected the article content, no? Jyoti (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti, not sure I understand you. The government estimates about 900 total deaths. Scholars like Jaffrelot and Brass estimate about twice that number, or more, and they are more reliable than the govt source, as per our policy. Which estimate does the infobox use? And where do the editors estimates enter the picture? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 is correct. We use estimates from reliable sources and scholarly sources are considered the most reliable. Official statements about the deaths can be included but should not be presented as primary estimates. --regentspark (comment) 12:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I thought official statement figures are considered most reliable. How would, say Brass, get the count himself? Jyoti (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, academic sources are considered the most reliable. We don't really concern ourselves with how they figure things out, that would be original research. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Madhu Kishwar

This section concerns a sentence I have added in the Introduction, after the "anger and disbelief" sentence, which I reproduce below for context: "The Muslim community are reported to have reacted with "anger and disbelief" and activist Teesta Setalvad has said that the legal process was not yet complete as there existed a right to appeal.<ref name="Krishnan 2012"/> At the same time, support for Modi among Gujarati Muslims has been growing and leading police professionals have said that Gujarat is the safest place for Muslims today.." My addition was immediately reverted by Vanamonde93. Uday Reddy (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kishwar may be reliable, I have not investigated him in too much detail; but the sentence that was just inserted into the lead, which I removed, is certainly UNDUE, because the article is not at any point talking about the generic response to Modi among Muslims. If it were, you could certainly use him. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Madhu Kishwar is a "she". Since she has a book-length academic work on the relationship between Modi and Muslims, and the particular chapter that I referenced is explicitly about how Muslims gravitated to Modi and how they have been countering the allegations and negative propaganda against him, this opposite academic view point is necessary to balance the superficial statement about the "Muslim community" in the preceding sentence. I agree that this article is not about Modi. I would be perfectly fine to remove all references to Modi. But, if references are made, they should be presented in a balanced way. Uday Reddy (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to her, that was careless. The sentence about the Muslim community is very specific; it discusses their reaction to the court verdict. It does not discuss their relationship with Modi in general. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you are being pedantic. How exactly would you expect the 31% of the Gujarati Muslims that voted for Modi in 2012 to express their reaction to the court verdict? Isn't the fact that they voted for him enough of an expression of satisfaction? The fact is that there are 3 groups of Muslims involved here: (i) the Gujarati Muslims that know the best about Modi through their first-hand knowledge of his administration, (ii) the victims of 2002 riots and their advocates, who are understandably angry with him (iii) the Muslims in the rest of India who only know Modi through the incessant anti-Modi propaganda in the media. You are saying that the voice of the most knowledgeable group among these should not be represented on Wikipedia, while the negative views of the others should be represented just because they "reacted" while the first group didn't? I maintain that we should either represent all of them, or none of them. No selective censorship. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about Muslim sentiment toward Modi. It does not contain sweeping generalizations about anti-Modi sentiment; therefore, it requires no sweeping generalizations about pro-Modi sentiment either. As I said once already, the statement in the lead is very specific. To contradict it, you need a source making an equally specific contradictory claim. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, you really need to make a better case to include Madhu Kishwar. The two views present in the lead are the "riots theory" of the administration, and the counter-argument that it was a pogrom. You are presenting a "counter-counter-argument;" which is totally unnecessary. If you believe otherwise, you are going to have to look for more support here on the talk. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 There is a strong view that a section of the media/academic/NGO grouped together to attack Modi and BJP. The motivations of this group have been questioned by many. Some of them were also found to be corrupt. It is important to the narration here to also cite these accusations against this group. Prodigyhk (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

True or not, that is a complete non sequitur; that was not what the added statement said. More importantly, that "strong view" is not as strong among reliable sources, especially academia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 what you push as "reliable academic sources" are comments by some academic/NGO folks that are NOT based on any fact nor hard evidence. I am OK for you to push this, if you are willing to place suitable counter arguments for this, as requested by Uday ReddyProdigyhk (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you begin dismissing sources like Nussbaum and Brass, you are not likely to be taken very seriously here. Academic writing, or "comments," as you call them, are Wikipedia gold standard for sourcing; questioning their methods and results of your own accord is classic original research, as you well know. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

you are the one who has been pushing this drama "Oh, Nussbaum is gold standard...Nussbaum can not be criticized, blah, blah". This is WP, not your private blog. Since If there are reliable arguments questioning the intentions and conclusions of Nussbaum and her opinionated tribe, then it must be included it. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"If there are reliable arguments questioning"; that's a very big "if" isn't it, seeing as you have not produced a single such source? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: I can understand why you feel that Kishwar would represent a "counter-counter-argument". But, the way I look at it, the State Government is the subject and there are two strands of opinion on how effective it was. To achieve balance, we need to represent the two strands of opinion. If we take it that the State Government on the one side and the national Press + academics on the other are the `protagonists', then there is a clear `David vs. Goliath' feel to that contest. The State Government is provincial, ill-educated in English or handling mass media, whereas the national Press + academics are expert communicators, well-versed in English, with national and global audience. The State Government is also busy governing, rather than fighting PR wars. So, it is a highly mismatched PR contest. Somebody like Madhu Kishwar brings in a much needed balance, much as she is an academic, investigative journalist and a human-rights activist rolled into one. All her information comes from first-hand accounts of the State's populace, and it demonstrably proves that the information we have gotten from the national Press and the academics is a narrow and distorted picture. I will find a better way to phrase what I wrote, but at the moment I am busy in the midst of travel. So it will take some time. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Our obligation is not to display "balance" between all views; our job is to reflect reliable sources, duly weighted. Most reliable sources contradict the government view; the article reflects this, and that is the way it should be. If you see Kishwar as simply strengthening the government view, then there is a severe problem of undue weight. Also, there are serious questions of reliability; I am still looking at the source, but it is clear that the author (Kishwar) is also the person who founded the publishing house; where then is the editorial oversight which is a hallmark of an academic publisher? Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just checking for information on the editorial policies of Manushi this morning, but couldn't find any. My guess is that Madhu Kishwar is the editor of the magazine (which is clearly not an academic journal), and she makes the decisions about whatever reviewing is done. Nevertheless, you will find several of her articles from Manushi cited in academic papers (as seen on Google Scholar), and many articles were also collected into volumes published by Oxford University Press (as seen on the Books & Videos section of the Manushi web site). In any case, the veracity of the army deployment doesn't depend all that much on Manushi or Madhu Kishwar. I quoted from her article merely because she gave precise details. But the fact that the army was deployed is known from tons of news articles and also the Human Rights Watch report, which is presumably a reliable source. Uday Reddy (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if we regard Madhu Kishwar's articles in Manushi as "self-publication", it stills meets the criteria for RS as laid out in WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Uday Reddy (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide

Wikipedia expects to be better than traditional Encyclopedias because of its open source nature. So, I don't see why it should be citing or quoting from other Encyclopedias.

The "Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide," in particular, seems to contain serious misinformation and blatant lies. For example, it states that the Central Government in New Delhi "refused to send in the army". This is known to be utterly false. Madhu Kishwar's article Modinama - 2 documents that:

• Gujarat requested the army from the Centre at 2:30pm on 28th February.
• The Union Defense Minister personally came down to Gujarat to oversee the deployment and met Modi at 10:30pm.
• The first air lift of army arrived by midnight on the 28th February.
• 13 columns of army were deployed by next morning.

In fact, Madhu Kishwar states that no other communal conflict in India saw the deployment of army at such high speed. (In her book, Kishwar also states that Modi asked for the Army units based in the State to be deployed on the 27th night itself. But the Army could not do so because of the prevailing border situation - Operation Parakram.)

In the light of this blatant misinformation, I would like to state that this Enclypedia is not reliable source, and all references to it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Also an encyclopedia is considered WP:TERTIARY and not used. And since it contains misinformation, it is best to remove it Prodigyhk (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rule against using a tertiary source; a secondary source is preferred, that is all. Also, one article in a magazine (as opposed to a peer reviewed journal) is not sufficient to discredit an encyclopedia. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

This is what the policy stated Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics . In the present case, specific allegation with exact quotes from the articles have been included. Also, the specific encyclopedic source has been shown as unreliable and contains misinformation. So, needs to be removed. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It has not been "shown to be unreliable;" the only contradictory piece you have produced is from Manushi, which is not a peer reviewed journal. Not sufficient. Also, it is the nature of a source that makes it primary or secondary, not its name; in this particular case, the "encyclopedia" is collecting primary statistics, making it to all intents and purposes a secondary source. Finally, it has been in the article for a long time, and I was not the one who put it there; so you are the one who needs to seek consensus, not me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this encyclopedia that you want to keep "peer reviewed" ? Per WPblame, this edit was done a year by DarknessShines. Now, as per policy, just because an edit has been here for a year, does not mean it can not be removed. read WP:PRIOR Prodigyhk (talk) 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You are shooting yourself in the foot. WP:PRIOR says "consensus can change;" which means you have to change it. If you get consensus to remove it, remove it by all means; but you have not done so, which is exactly what I pointed out above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 The source was required to be removed by Reddyuday. I agree that his arguments are valid. You are the only person not agreeing, which means the onus is on you to convince us on why to keep the source. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 What? The fact that the army was deployed is quite well-known. Even the Human Rights Watch report has acknowledged it (though they complained that the State Government delayed the deployment). The source's claim that the Central Government refused Army support is quite ridiculous. It did not give its sources either. I don't agree that it counts as a "secondary" source. Uday Reddy (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Uday Reddy:; Friend, "well known" is not an argument on Wikipedia, as you well know. I'm making a very basic point; to remove a source like the encyclopedia, you need a source of higher reliability; Manushi is not a peer reviewed journal, and therefore does not count. @Prodigyhk:; you are trying to "prove" that a certain source contains incorrect information. Given that by normal standards the source is perfectly good, I have to prove absolutely nothing; the onus is on you. Take it to RSN by all means; alternatively, do what I asked, and find a more reliable source contradicting the specific claim, in which case that particular claim can be changed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 The arguments by Uday are also valid. My additional argument, is it need to be removed since the policy WP:TERTIARY state - Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics - In the present case, specific allegation with exact quotes from the articles have been included. So, need to be removed. Hope it is clear ? Prodigyhk (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

You have not yet produced a reliable source contradicting the encyclopedia. I am rather fed up of debating WP:Tertiary with you, but in any case that policy does not cover using tertiary sources for specific material, so like I said before, if you wish to remove it, take it to RSN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

can you show me which WP policy allow using "tertiary sources for specific material" Prodigyhk (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Generally, reliable tertiary sources are useful and valid and the Manushi piece is not reliable. However, I suggest we be wary of using this particular "encyclopedia" source. Even though it carries the encyclopedia label, it appears to be a book. The authors appear to have no academic affiliation (they write on general subjects in a variety of areas). My suggestion, unless there are good secondary sources that support the same statements, drop it. --regentspark (comment) 07:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Regentspark:, I agree that the source is not quite exemplary; but I did look it up before this argument, and at least one of the authors (Catherwood) has had academic affiliations in History departments before (even if he does not currently hold one). The publisher is also not a university affiliated one, but has published serious academic material. I also tried to make the point above that this is effectively a secondary source; but that did not go down too well. Given that, and also given that the source was first added by DS, whose judgement I trust and who cannot unfortunately comment here, I felt the source should stay until we have a reliable contradictory source; if such is found, I'd be the first to remove this. Is that unreasonable? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See page 21 of the Human Rights Watch report and the references cited therein. The times reported there (deployment on Friday 11am) are consistent with Madhu Kishwar's timeline. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It turns out that we have been quite silly, because our own article says that the army was deployed on the 1st March. See the paragraph starting with "The day following." So, I am going to get rid of this stupid source. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

@Reddyuday: I have removed it myself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

removing the sentence that is from this source Prodigyhk (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The information is not necessarily invalidated; the mistake the encyclopedia made was with the army deployment date. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a violation of WP:ALIVE: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It appears that User:Prodigyhk did the right thing. First of all, the quotation of Modi's remark is partial and distorted. He said the attacks were a "terrorist attack, not communal violence." He said that the state government would bring the culprits to book and people should not take the law into their own hands. Nothing in this could be interpreted as an incitement to violence. The disgraced source was libelous. Retaining this libel on Wikipedia is uncalled for. Uday Reddy (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The only material covered by the BLP is the quote; the quote itself is not contentious, and therefore can remain. If it is incomplete, then you are welcome to complete it. In any case, I have now sourced it. The rest of the paragraph is about the public interpretation of what Modi said; this is not covered by the BLP, nor is it libelous; therefore, it can remain with the tag. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If not libelous, it is a text book example of weasel words, of which we are asked to wary of on WP:ALIVE. In any case, thanks for the excellent Tribune source! Uday Reddy (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I repeat, a statement about how Modi's words were interpreted is not covered by the BLP. If it is weaselly, then we can improve it; but striking it is inappropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, The reference does not back the content "Modi declared that the attack on the train had been an act of terrorism". Kindly revert it, you may let cn tag stay. Thank you. --Jyoti (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

What? Answer No.1 given by Modi to his interviewer. "...Godhra incident was not communal violence but terrorism." Explicit enough for you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 I failed to see that "Godhra" here is taken to refer to the train incident alone. That is where I got confused. Could you make it closer to the source following WP:SAY; I don't see any reason you want to use 'declared'. I propose: In an interview to The Tribune, Modi expressed that Godhra incident was not communal violence but terrorism. --Jyoti (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti: I don't see the problem here. "Declared" is exactly right. This was part of the CM's Press Release on 27th February, issued in Godhra. (See Modinama-2.) Modi followed it up by invoking POTO (Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance) to bring the accused to book. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Uday Reddy, existing reference does not back it. Please add the reference you are mentioning or change the content. Regards. --Jyoti (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Jyoti: I have cited Andy Marino's book, which is a better reference than Modinama-2 from the Wikipedia point of view. Of course, that doesn't have to stop you from reading Modinama-2 for yourself! Uday Reddy (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. --Jyoti (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Terrorist acts incite communal violence?

The article says: Modi declared that the attack on the train had been carried out by "terrorists", these words were interpreted as a signal to take vengeance on the Muslim community.. Apart from the fact that the source is the disgraced Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, I am hard put to understand how any one can interpret a terrorist act as a signal for vengeance. Are there any instances of terrorist acts having given rise to communal violence? Did anybody in Gujarat claim that they were attacking Muslims because they were "terrorists"?

From Modi's own words quoted by Kishwar, "This inhuman terrorist crime of collective /mass violence is not an incident of communal violence," Modi apparently thought that he was distinguishing a terrorist act from an act of communal violence. Was he completely off the mark here? What do the experts say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The experts are cited in the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

There are no "experts" cited in the article. What is cited is the disgraced Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide, which does not provide any answers. WP:WPNOTRS and WP:BIASED. There is also a dangerous mix of fact and opinion in this sentence. WP:YESPOV. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Reddyuday - It is waste of time talking about NPOV here, because nobody wrote about the other side of riots. This is going to stay like other similar events here in WP, which is drawn upon academic sources alone and not newspapers. As though newspapers do not have editors scrutinising it. A small typo or error in newspapers is usually apologised in the next day newspaper, so newspaper can be highly reliable source. If you do not believe Indian newspapers or consider it third rated, you can very well see the American newspapers. By the way, I still wonder how Brass, Nussbaum or Jaffrelot went through the streets like some Investigation agency and found out everything. They might be some superheroes I believe. ;) -Vatsan34 (talk) 04:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia sourcing policy says academic work is in general better than media sources. If you disagree with the policy, go take it up with Jimbo. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Vatsan34: As I have said before, we need to bring in new sources to provide alternative viewpoints. Do you have such sources? The academics you mention have very likely gathered their material from Indian news sources and the human rights organizations. The biases in these sources will show up in their work which will in turn show up on Wikipedia. This is inevitable. But I don't see any reason why alternative viewpoints that are not covered in the academic works cannot be directly supported by newspaper sources. Uday Reddy (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP allows the use of news media sources. WP:source * WP:NEWSORG#News_organizations Prodigyhk (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Nazi textbooks

I am deleting the passage dealing with Nazi textbooks, which currently reads as follows: "The [NHRC] report also made mention of the BJP and Modi in "Promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his governments support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified". The US state department also found "that Modi revised high school textbooks to describe Hitler's 'charismatic personality' and the 'achievements of Nazism'.[130][Note 1]" The reasons are as follows:

1. It is completely irrelevant to the 2002 Gujarat riots.
2. The supposed NHRC report hasn't been cited, and I couldn't find any such.
3. The US state department doesn't say that Modi revised high school textbooks. Neither did Nussbaum claim that it did.
4. There were a bunch of US Congressman in the pay of Pakistan that raised issue, but let us not go there.
5. This is a big boondoggle. See, for example, this article that says that Gujarat's textbooks were far more balanced than those of other states.
6. Nobody produced any proof that Modi revised text books. For all we know, these text books might have always been like that.
7. It is completely irrelevant to the 2002 Gujarat riots.
8. It is slander, violating WP:ALIVE.

I'm reverting your edits. The Marino source says that Modi put the blame on gujarat's history of communal violence - not the same thing. About the 'proof' and the NHRC source, a secondary source is present in the text. We don't need to prove anything nor do we consult primary sources. Finally, do note that blogs are not considered reliable sources for material on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 07:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with RP. In addition, the "not relevent" part of your comment is contradictory to what that source says; and we do not second guess reliable sources, except when evaluating due weight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

regentspark: First of all please don't revert multiple edits on unrelated issues. You are wrong about the the Marino source because it has exactly the words I wrote "This inhuman terrorist crime of collective/mass violence is not an incident of communal violence." (from Modi's press statement in Godhra). As regarding "Nazi textbooks", you are again wrong because the Nussbaum book doesn't say that State Department accused Modi. She said that Congressmen accused. You haven't answered the question, what does all this have to do with 2002 riots anyway? Uday Reddy (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: I have retained the relevant part, viz., the State Department revoked the visa citing NHRC report. If people want the textbook issue discussed, that should be done on the Narendra Modi page, not here. Uday Reddy (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me also note that the State Department page on the visa issue, which is linked in our own article, has held Modi responsible as the Head of the Government, not in any personal capacity. If a secondary source distorts a primary source and makes remarks, those remarks should be attributed to the secondary source, not presented as fact. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reddyuday, the connection between the riots and the textbooks is drawn by Nussbaum. She is reliable, and is not a fringe source, so we present what she says, period. I repeat, we do not second-guess a reliable source, that would be OR. Also, you are wrong about Nussbaum; the bottom of page 50 says that the US state department says that Modi revised textbooks. The blog is unreliable, and the presence of a secondary source explicitly supporting the statement means that it is certainly not slander.

Also, the consensus version is the one that existed before you got here; so please don't tell RP to seek consensus, it is you who need to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I am willing to debate the textbook issue further. But, regentspark also reverted the Modi quote at the same time (which we agreed on here earlier). That was uncalled for. Uday Reddy (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

All that we agreed on was that the quote was appropriate, and that it was not a BLP violation; in any case, RP didn't comment there, so disagreeing was his prerogative. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

regentspark, like Uday Reddy said I also think you should be more careful when rolling`back several edits, it undid unrelated edits. Since I am here, my take on this textbook thing -- it does not belong here, particularly the English examination question is utterly irrelevant! --Jyoti (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the Gujarat textbook affair was well summarized as a non-issue in this recent online article (excerpted from a book) here. --Calypsomusic (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: I think you haven't understood the point. Our article says: The US state department also found "that Modi revised high school textbooks...". If the US state department found anything like that, it should be easy enough to find it in the State Department report here. Can you find it? No. Can you find it in the House Resolution 156? Yes. So, if you want to keep this text, please change the attribution to the Resolution 156, which will allow me to bring in the questionable Congressman and his background. Or, you can honorably quote from the State Department report and keep things civil. Your choice. Uday Reddy (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what quote you're (udayreddy) talking about but if there is consensus to include it then that's fine with me (and it's easy enough to re-add it(. The rational above was incorrect so I reverted the edits (and explained why). If you believe that some material shouldn't be in this article, then feel free to seek consensus for excluding it here. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why I need to repeat this so often, but we do not concern ourselves with how secondary sources figure out what they say; that is OR. If there is indeed a mistake, then you need to find another secondary source that says that. And no, Elst does not count; he is a fringe source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: Elst is not important. Please don't get get sidetracked. You haven't responded to the substantive issues I have mentioned. Basically, your interpretation of Nussbaum or that of whoever first paraphrased Nussbaum is wrong. She doesn't say what you think she says. The current text in the article is a gross distortion and a lie. It violates WP:BLP. Uday Reddy (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in evaluating a source, if a secondary source distorts a primary source how can that secondary source be considered as reliable? -sarvajna (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The state department report does mention the re-writing of textbooks. If Nussbaum chooses to interpret that to mean Modi was responsible, or if she has other sources confirming that, it doesn't matter; that is her prerogative as an academic. The quote from the book is as follows; "Significantly, [the house resolution] also referred more generally to the role of Modi and his government in "promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred, and the legacy of Nazism through his administration's support of textbooks in which Nazism is glorified," and to the finding (by the US State Department) that Modi revised high-school textbooks to describe Hitler's "'charismatic personality' and the achievements of Nazism."" (Emphasis mine). Is that explicit enough for you? The article currently paraphrases this. So quite spouting stuff about gross distortions. If you want to go and find a secondary source that contradicts this, that is fine by me. sarvajna, "if a secondary source distorts a primary source;" yes, that would be an issue, but looking for such a distortion ourselves is a prime example of WP:OR. Go find a source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: Thank you for getting to the point. But you are not quite there yet. (1) State department does not say that Gujarat textbooks have been rewritten. It just says that they are in a certain way. (2) Nussbaum did not choose to interpret that Modi revised them. The House Resolution did. (3) In contrast, Wikipedia claims that the State Department interpreted it that way. So, this constitutes original research and must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Wikipedia also claims that the National Human Rights Commission Report commented on these things. No such claim is in the source and therefore consitutes original research. That should also be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Since you chose to revert my well-intentioned edits, you must remove this material right now, immediately without further discussion. Uday Reddy (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What part of "finding (by the US State Department) that Modi revised high-school textbooks to describe Hitler's [XYZ]" is unclear to you? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the so-called "finding by the US State Department" is a direct quote from the House Resolution. I have given you the link for the House Resolution. Did you read it? Nussbaum did not say that the US State Department actually found such a revision having occurred. She is talking about the House Resolution and nothing else. If she wanted to quote from the State Department, she would have done so. She didn't. In any case, since Nussbaum is clearly focusing on the House Resolution and directly quoting words from it, why do you want to change that to State Department and bring in your own WP:OR? Uday Reddy (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The quote as written is absolutely straightforward, and supports the text in the article. If you disagree, find a source that contradicts this, or take it to RSN; I have little patience left for this particular argument. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the relevance of the allegations to this article? Since these were just allegations, and the textbooks "did not praise Hitler, did mention the Holocaust, and had been issued by a previous Congress government", the sentence in the article is not written neutrally, it should be made clear that these are allegations. Also, "Mein Kampf" is a best-seller in India and most Arab countries, should we mention that also in this article? I just don't see why this article needs to invoke Godwin's law just because some biased scholars do. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How many times do you need to be told that Elst is not RS? Also, the relevance is described by the sources we use; further justification is not needed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is now referred to the BLP Noticeboard. Uday Reddy (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Nothing much has happened on the BLP Noticeboard. So, I am making one more attempt to reach agreement, failing which I will need to escalate further. In the following the source is Martha Nussbaum's Clash Within, pp. 50-51, reproduced in full further down.

Issue 1:

Source says: [The Conyers-Pitts resolution referred] to the finding by India’s National Human Rights Commission that there was “evidence of premeditation in the killings of non-Hindu groups, complicity by Gujarat State government officials, and police inaction in the midst of attacks on Muslims and Christians.”

WP says: The report from the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) concluded that the attacks had been premeditated, that state government officials were complicit, and that there was evidence of police not acting during the assaults on Muslims.

Problem: the Conyers-Pitts resolution has been eliminated, and the statements are directly attributed to NHRC. WP:SYN and WP:OR

Fact: NHRC Report only notes that the Godhra incident was "premeditated" (p. 5) according to the State Government report, i.e., the premeditation in the killing of Hindus, not non-Hindu groups.

Fact: NHRC Report doesn't mention "Christians" even though they are mentioned in the source and the Conyers-Pitts resolution. Thankfully, WP has cut out "Christians". This is WP:Cherrypicking, which indicates that the original editor knew what he/she was doing.

Issue 2:

Source says: it [Conyers-Pitts resolution] also referred more generally to the role of Modi and his government in “promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred, and the legacy of Nazism through his government’s support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified”

WP says: The [NHRC] report also stated that Modi's government had a role in "Promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of Nazism through his governments support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified".

Problem: Conyers-Pitts claims have been transferred to NHRC, which never said anything about racial supremacy. If I am right in assuming that the original editor knew what he/she was doing, he/she is now lying.

Issue 3:

Source says: [Conyers-Pitts resolution also reffered] to the finding (by the U.S. State Department) that Modi revised high school textbooks to describe Hitler’s “‘charismatic personality’ and the ‘achievements’ of Nazism.”

WP says: The US state department also found "that Modi revised high school textbooks to describe Hitler's 'charismatic personality' and the 'achievements of Nazism'.

Problem: Once again, the Conyers-Pitts resolution has been eliminated and the statements directly attributed to the State Department.

Fact: The State Department report notes that the textbooks had these issues, but doesn't say that Modi revised them. Independent reports have said that these text books were 10 years old, and they were just being reprinted.

What should be done: Represent the source faithfully or cut out the passage.

The full passage from the source:

   On March 15 Congressman John Conyers (Democrat from Michigan)
   submitted a House Resolution cosponsored by Congressman
   Joe Pitts (Republican from Pennsylvania) condemning the conduct of
   Modi in inciting religious persecution in Gujarat. The resolution referred
   to the condemnation in the U.S. State Department’s Religious
   Freedom Report, to the admonition of Modi by the Indian Supreme
   Court for “complacency and actions in connection with the attacks on
   non-Hindu groups,” and to the finding by India’s National Human
   Rights Commission that there was “evidence of premeditation in the
   killings of non-Hindu groups, complicity by Gujarat State government
   officials, and police inaction in the midst of attacks on Muslims and
   Christians.” Significantly, it also referred more generally to the role of
   Modi and his government in “promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy,
   racial hatred, and the legacy of Nazism through his government’s
   support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified” and
   to the finding (by the U.S. State Department) that Modi revised high
   school textbooks to describe Hitler’s “‘charismatic personality’ and the
   ‘achievements’ of Nazism.”47 Independently, Pitts wrote a letter to
   Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (cosigned by various others), asking
   the State Department to deny Modi a visa.

Uday Reddy (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now reorganized the first paragraph of the Inquiries section, separating the NHRC, State Department and Conyers-Pitts resolutions. Please let me know if any further issues. Uday Reddy (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Newspaper sources

How about removing all newspaper sources and allowing only books to stay? Since newspapers are written at the heat of the moment and since it might not involve editorial corrections, we can remove BBC and India today sources from this article. - Vatsan34 (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have any constructive suggestions to make, please make them. If you have come here to Wikilawyer, please find someplace else to do so. When scholarly sources disagree with them, media sources are definitely less useful; NOTNEWS, etc; and they are overall less reliable. When Everybody agrees on something, it matters a lot less which sources we choose; and the newspapers often have the most condensed version of the story. You know all this damned well, having been here for a while; which is what makes me think you didn't begin this thread to have a real discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a constructive suggestion. How can you jump to "everybody agrees on something", when many here spoke about imbalance in newspaper vs books sources. Why can't we include "<author> told this, but <newspaper> negates this" or vice versa? That is what most of the Wiki articles carry. Exception is any article related to Gujarat riots! - Vatsan34 (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything in newspaper sources has been contradicted by scholarly sources, we should certainly discuss it. If we can simply improve the source by replacing a newspaper by a scholarly source, that can be done silently. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde&Kautilya can we keep the discussion focused and constructive, agf? --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)